Losing Gracefully


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I don't remember what DMW has to say on this matter, but I find it very hard to imagine it won't be any easier to play in practice. Strictures are generally lawful by nature, so it's going to be difficult to come up with a code that is chaotic to begin with. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I find it hard to imagine what it would consist of.

My version (found here among other places) suggests the following for a CG Paladin's Code:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

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).

I feel like that gets a little wordy, but it could probably be edited a bit, and if taken seriously it is very restrictive of your behavior (to about the same degree as the LG one) in a way that is very CG in principle.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I don't remember what DMW has to say on this matter, but I find it very hard to imagine it won't be any easier to play in practice. Strictures are generally lawful by nature, so it's going to be difficult to come up with a code that is chaotic to begin with. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I find it hard to imagine what it would consist of.

My version (found here among other places) suggests the following for a CG Paladin's Code:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

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).

I feel like that gets a little wordy, but it could probably be edited a bit, and if taken seriously it is very restrictive of your behavior (to about the same degree as the LG one) in a way that is very CG in principle.

To my eye, three is mostly entailed by two. I can't think of many situations where walking right past a situation where someone was forcing someone else to do something against their will wouldn't also mean allowing an innocent to come to immediate harm.

Likewise, most ways of breaking four also involve breaking one. The only thing I can think of that this prohibits that a LG paladin is allowed is the use of enchantment magic, and if it turns out that the party's enchanter cannot exist peacefully alongside the Chaodin, that's the bad kind of restrictive that pits different players' fun against each other.

Liberty's Edge

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
To my eye, three is mostly entailed by two. I can't think of many situations where walking right past a situation where someone was forcing someone else to do something against their will wouldn't also mean allowing an innocent to come to immediate harm.

Joe, who you know is innocent, is being arrested. If he went along quietly, you could clear this up at the station, but he refuses to do so. As a CG Paladin, you have to back Joe up, even to the point of physically fighting the police, because his autonomy is more important than the law.

There are many other equivalent situations. They certainly come up at least as often as honorable behavior that doesn't fall under 'Don't commit Evil acts.'

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Likewise, most ways of breaking four also involve breaking one.

Not necessarily. From a LG perspective, forcing people to do things 'for their own good' is potentially valid. It never is from a CG one (at least not an extreme CG one). For example, physically preventing someone from running into a burning building to save their child violates this tenet, but is certainly not an Evil act most times.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
The only thing I can think of that this prohibits that a LG paladin is allowed is the use of enchantment magic, and if it turns out that the party's enchanter cannot exist peacefully alongside the Chaodin, that's the bad kind of restrictive that pits different players' fun against each other.

Enchantment would come into conflict with #3 if the enchanter used it on an innocent, and #4 would mean they couldn't personally use it most of the time, but a party member using it on non-innocents would be fine.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Joe, who you know is innocent, is being arrested. If he went along quietly, you could clear this up at the station, but he refuses to do so. As a CG Paladin, you have to back Joe up, even to the point of physically fighting the police, because his autonomy is more important than the law.

There are many other equivalent situations. They certainly come up at least as often as honorable behavior that doesn't fall under 'Don't commit Evil acts.'

Do they though? So I see that this prevents you from playing nice with guards unless you're able to talk them down during the inciting incident, but I can't think of any other situations which aren't just recolors of this one.

It also needs an "unless it would be suicidal" clause to prevent Chaodins from charging headfirst into a guardsman's spear the instant they enter an evil-aligned nation.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not necessarily. From a LG perspective, forcing people to do things 'for their own good' is potentially valid.

Again, that's too specific. A "force you to do it for your own good" situation is going to come up like once every ten campaigns. It's not a meaningful difference.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
For example, physically preventing someone from running into a burning building to save their child violates this tenet, but is certainly not an Evil act most times.

This would count as allowing an innocent to come to harm through inaction.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Enchantment would come into conflict with #3 if the enchanter used it on an innocent, and #4 would mean they couldn't personally use it most of the time, but a party member using it on non-innocents would be fine.

I'll concede this point. It's probably at least no worse than the relationship between a LG paladin and a rogue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure where this idea that people will only play LG if they absolutely have to comes from. I've played several LG characters over the years including a Monk and a Fighter, and applied with a few more I didn't get into the campaign with (I really liked my Iomedaean Mesmerist idea...).


As far as Paladins go, pretty much everything about the class speaks to epitomizing the LG alignment. I don't really have a problem with other alignments getting comparable classes, but just swapping out 'Lawful' and 'Good' with 'Chaotic' and 'Evil' is both kinda lame and a discredit to those other alignment by basically ignoring their philosophies that make them unique - such analogues are, I believe, best designed as new classes in their own right.

I suppose Paizo could redesign the 2e Pally to be wholly divorced from its LG roots, but the resulting class would seem lacking features that distinguish it from, for example, the Fighter.

Also, based on what Mark's said in the Paladin preview it doesn't really sound like the Anathema really has any impact on what the characters' behaviours so it's hardly a factor in balancing the class. With any luck, matters concerning alignment will be explicitly placed solely at the GM's discretion in the finished game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like that code a lot. I agree situations that will really test it probably aren't super common, but then again they really aren't for the Paladin either. When a paladin finds themselves pushed against the limits of their code, it almost always seems to be because the GM (or in some cases, the players) deliberately orchestrated a situation to do that. I expect the same would be true for this hypothetical CG paragon.

As for situations where tenet 3 is violated but not tenet 1:

-- Drafting soldiers into an army. Drafts rarely let you simply say no, and becoming a soldier would be a POTENTIAL harm, not an IMMEDIATE harm.

-- Taxation seems like it could get ugly quickly. You just need someone who doesn't want to pay their taxes but isn't going to starve from doing so, and the CG hero might have to step in.

--Any sort of vice laws. Using an illegal drug or buying illegal but consensual sexual services may get someone in trouble with the law. They are guilty of the crime, but no innocents are being hurt. (Unless the drug would be hurting themselves and that violates an earlier tenet I guess?)

The interesting thing about the fourth tenet is that it doesn't specify innocence. If your party captures an enemy who knows stuff but they don't want to talk, when is the CG paragon allowed to take measures to make them talk? Obviously they can't use evil acts like torture to do so, but intimidation or other forms of coercion also seem out. Does that get lifted if getting the person to talk to might reveal information that will help stop the bad guys and therefore protect innocents?

Liberty's Edge

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Do they though? So I see that this prevents you from playing nice with guards unless you're able to talk them down during the inciting incident, but I can't think of any other situations which aren't just recolors of this one.

There are many similar situations. You can't allow anyone you consider an innocent to be forced to obey the law, or any other body of rules, in any way. You can allow them to be forced not to hurt people or violate their autonomy, but obeying any other laws? You must universally and unequivocally side with anyone you deem innocent over society's rules. Always.

It's really a pretty big deal.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
It also needs an "unless it would be suicidal" clause to prevent Chaodins from charging headfirst into a guardsman's spear the instant they enter an evil-aligned nation.

A Lawful Paladin has serious issues in areas with restrictive laws. Also note that nothing prevents the CG Paladin from being subtle about their opposition. They can manipulate or lie, or do things in secret to stop the violations of autonomy rather than resorting to overt ones.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Again, that's too specific. A "force you to do it for your own good" situation is going to come up like once every ten campaigns. It's not a meaningful difference.

Frankly, I don't see situations where 'honor' comes up that much in games either.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
This would count as allowing an innocent to come to harm through inaction.

Uh...no. That requires you to go in and save the kid if possible (which the CG one still needs to do, by the way). It in no way forces you to let another innocent endanger their life trying to save them. The CG one generally does require you to allow them to go, or at least err in that direction.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
I'll concede this point. It's probably at least no worse than the relationship between a LG paladin and a rogue.

Yeah, it's workable.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
I like that code a lot.

Thanks. :)

Captain Morgan wrote:
I agree situations that will really test it probably aren't super common, but then again they really aren't for the Paladin either. When a paladin finds themselves pushed against the limits of their code, it almost always seems to be because the GM (or in some cases, the players) deliberately orchestrated a situation to do that. I expect the same would be true for this hypothetical CG paragon.

Yeah, the third and fourth principles of the LG Code don't come up too often as a big problem in most games either. Not breaking the law can, but it being the lowest priority on the Code provides a lot of ways around it.

Captain Morgan wrote:

As for situations where tenet 3 is violated but not tenet 1:

-- Drafting soldiers into an army. Drafts rarely let you simply say no, and becoming a soldier would be a POTENTIAL harm, not an IMMEDIATE harm.

-- Taxation seems like it could get ugly quickly. You just need someone who doesn't want to pay their taxes but isn't going to starve from doing so, and the CG hero might have to step in.

--Any sort of vice laws. Using an illegal drug or buying illegal but consensual sexual services may get someone in trouble with the law. They are guilty of the crime, but no innocents are being hurt. (Unless the drug would be hurting themselves and that violates an earlier tenet I guess?)

Yup. All of these are intended results, too.

Captain Morgan wrote:
The interesting thing about the fourth tenet is that it doesn't specify innocence. If your party captures an enemy who knows stuff but they don't want to talk, when is the CG paragon allowed to take measures to make them talk? Obviously they can't use evil acts like torture to do so, but intimidation or other forms of coercion also seem out. Does that get lifted if getting the person to talk to might reveal information that will help stop the bad guys and therefore protect innocents?

It's an interesting situation. Coercion is right out unless it can lead directly to protecting an innocent (either from harm or from having their autonomy violated). Indeed, the capturing portion itself is right out unless it's about protecting an innocent (since holding someone prisoner is a form of coercion).

For example, a CG Paladin could not imprison a murderer if they sincerely believed they were reformed. They can imprison to prevent future harm, but not to punish past wrongdoings. The person would not be innocent and they could thus allow others to imprison or coerce them, but could not engage in such behavior personally.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
A Lawful Paladin has serious issues in areas with restrictive laws.

Not the PF2 version. She can disregard a law any time it'd prevent her from saving an innocent. I'd argue that this probably includes cases where those laws would cripple her and keep her from engaging in Paladinry. She also never has to do something suicidal.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Frankly, I don't see situations where 'honor' comes up that much in games either.

Fair point, at least in PF2. PF1 has a concrete example in the form of poison use.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...no. That requires you to go in and save the kid if possible (which the CG one still needs to do, by the way). It in no way forces you to let another innocent endanger their life trying to save them. The CG one generally does require you to allow them to go, or at least err in that direction.

I'm presuming that the person running into the building obviously had no chance and letting them go is letting them die. If that is true, letting them go in is letting them come to immediate harm and violates the code. If not, that is, if they may very well succeed and we all accept that then sure the Chaodin has to allow them and the LG paladin has a choice.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
For example, a CG Paladin could not imprison a murderer if they sincerely believed they were reformed. They can imprison to prevent future harm, but not to punish past wrongdoings. The person would not be innocent and they could thus allow others to imprison or coerce them, but could not engage in such behavior personally.

That's actually the kind of thing I am looking for. Something most people wouldn't accept that'd get them on the wrong side of the wrong people, but that wouldn't require them to become an outlaw and derail the campaign instantly. If paired with mechanics that complimented this alignment (Smite Law instead of Evil probably, less emphasis on teamwork/helping allies, etc.) I could get behind this.


DMW, does the CG paragon have to protect innocents from harming themselves? That feels pretty important to personal autonomy. Seems like if someone outright wanted to kill themselves that would be respected.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

What's unattractive about lawful good characters? Two examples:

One: I'm playing what I consider to be a lawful good character. He has lawful traits and good traits. He's not a caricature of the alignment, so he also has evil and chaotic traits (as well as neutral traits on both axes), but I intend for them to be exceptions and outliers. In good faith, I believe that I have described a character that fits more into LG than anywhere else, and that I am portraying that character in a way that will be taken as LG. When I advertise my character as LG, that is what I'm communicating.

But that isn't what is being communicated. You see me write LG on my character sheet, and naturally, you think what I'm portraying should fit into your idea of what can fit within the bounds of LG. That what I estimate to be the natural and obvious tolerances for "well, that might have been a deviation on LG, but the character is still LG overall" will be the same as your estimate. And if/when I disappoint and have the character do something that I do believe to still be within the standard accepted deviation of LG but that you do not, then I must be doing it wrong. Cue unwanted and unwarranted scrutiny.

Two: I play precisely and exactly the same character as before. I still think he's more LG than anything else, and I don't portray him one iota differently than I did in the first example. The difference is: I don't pass him off as LG. He's as LG as I know how to make a character, but I write TN on the character sheet. So whatever I have the character do, with all his lawful and good actions and occasional chaotic and evil actions, it's all taken as the standard accepted deviations on True Neutral. Anecdotally, the conversation always ends after I say the character's alignment is TN. Somehow, it invites less scrutiny to do it that way (and not just LG, but practically any non-TN-alignment).

The character did not change. The apparent open invitation to pause the game and rip me a new one over personal differences on a subjective topic went away; that certainly changed. But the character did not.

You want LG (or alignment in general) to be less unattractive? Get rid of the impetus to subject players to scrutiny they never asked for and don't deserve. Make alignment have nothing at stake. No one argues if I declare my character to be decisive rather than wishy-washy, and you think that, while the character isn't wishy-washy, he isn't decisive enough to be decisive. With nothing at stake, the argument dies before it starts and you and I can simply agree to disagree.


For an example of what these guys might look like in Golarion, inspiration could probably be drawn from Nirmathas and their Chernasardo Rangers. Though they are more the freedom side and less the good, I'd say.

Liberty's Edge

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
That's actually the kind of thing I am looking for. Something most people wouldn't accept that'd get them on the wrong side of the wrong people, but that wouldn't require them to become an outlaw and derail the campaign instantly.

There's actually a lot of that kind of thing inherent in total respect for the autonomy of others, IMO.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
If paired with mechanics that complimented this alignment (Smite Law instead of Evil probably, less emphasis on teamwork/helping allies, etc.) I could get behind this.

I would be strongly against replacing Smite Evil with something anti-Law (not that it exists per se in PF2). An important point of the CG Paladin, for me, is that it remains equally focused on Good.

That specified, I'm totally on board with less team focused stuff, and would add a greater focus on offense rather than defense (at least in terms of weapon/armor proficiency, I'd probably keep Divine Grace as an option), as that fits pretty well thematically. Several other changes are also possible (I'd assume no Oath based stuff, for example), while a few abilities that are more subtle/sneaky likewise seem appropriate.

And really, something like that is what we're gonna get if we get anything. They've said that if they do Paladin type stuff of other Alignments their abilities will be distinctly different.

Captain Morgan wrote:
DMW, does the CG paragon have to protect innocents from harming themselves? That feels pretty important to personal autonomy. Seems like if someone outright wanted to kill themselves that would be respected.

I'd probably argue that this wouldn't count as harm by most Chaotic definitions. My own definition of harm involves consent (or perhaps more accurately the lack thereof), meaning something rarely counts as harm if you consent to it, and that strikes me as an extremely Chaotic point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
rainzax wrote:
So maybe the question you can ask yourself is: Do you have any last words while we usher in the new era of Pathfinder?
Bye.

Not to condemn PF2 prematurely, but I think this rings of a healthy attitude.

I'm simply providing feedback related to what I prefer. Its Paizo who is rolling the dice and will be either the winner or the loser. I will ultimately either choose to use PF2, or choose to use another system, based on my preferences and the stories I intend to run.

Being on the unpopular side of a debate on these boards is not losing.

MerlinCross wrote:
Should I jump to 5e? Eh, there's this homebrew system I've been meaning to try.

The upcoming year will be a good time to get to know PF2, but it also marks a good time to look around at what else is out there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too like P1E-style multiclassing.

Being able to dabble in something, sacrifice power and progression for versatility, and just look for neat combos are all perks that I enjoy, even though I rarely use it, I appreciate having the option available.

But I know it isn't perfect. Casters pay dearly in their spells outside of fairly rare prestige classes. P1E casters hardly needed a boost, but P2E has hopefully fixed that. There's also some obscure optimal combos, and I imagine developers have that lurking over their shoulder when new classes are having their features set, nudging for some to get delayed.

I hope this VMCesque approach works. I would like multiclassing to be roughly as appealing across the board, not just where synergies align fortuitously. If what is needed to raise access for most is to reduce it for the currently favoured few, I will wistfully accept the trade.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
... In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I play a lawful good ninja, if that helps alleviate the isolation. They cheer people up with hugs.

There might be a certain inherent bias to chaos in adventuring parties, as adventures tend to break from the orderly normalcy of lawful society.


I really like the CG Codes you and others have made DMW. But I myself fancy the idea of making the Code more Chaotic in structure as well. My idea would be to keep Tenets 1 & 2 as is but have the player choose what Tenets 3 & 4 are from a list of 6-8 choices. This could be akin to the Oath feats but baked into character design. Then the deity would flavour the Chaotodin even more. I could even see players rolling randomly for Tenets 3 & 4, or picking a predesigned Code (such as DMWs...)

That way in game when you meet a Chaotodin, you never know what you are going to get. One Chaotodin could be vastly different from the next in respects to the Code. While the Paladin, you know hat you're going to get.

Deadmanwalking said wrote:
That specified, I'm totally on board with less team focused stuff, and would add a greater focus on offense rather than defense (at least in terms of weapon/armor proficiency, I'd probably keep Divine Grace as an option), as that fits pretty well thematically. Several other changes are also possible (I'd assume no Oath based stuff, for example), while a few abilities that are more subtle/sneaky likewise seem appropriate.

I'm totally onboard with this, the two classes should be markedly different. In fact the only problem with my Chaotodin Code that I can think of so far is similar to what ThePuppyTurtle said up thread. The balance between Paladins and Chaotodins. Chaotodins get to rearrange their Code while the Paladin can't, and that's not fair. But as I said, my proposed Code embraces the concept of Chaos coming from Within while the Paladin's Code comes from Without. But I still firmly believe that the Chaotodin Code should mean something, or we shouldn't be having this conversation to begin with...


What other choices would you have for tenets though? I can't think of anything that fits an extreme of Chaotic Good better than protecting autonomy over all else.

Where the Paladin has to obey silly or even evil laws, the CG paragon would have to BREAK such laws, or even reasonable laws in specific circumstances.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artificial 20 wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
... In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I play a lawful good ninja, if that helps alleviate the isolation. They cheer people up with hugs.

There might be a certain inherent bias to chaos in adventuring parties, as adventures tend to break from the orderly normalcy of lawful society.

Rejoice, for you are not alone. I myself have a LG alchemist, having gotten the mad scientist kick out of my system with my first one (who was LN oddly enough). I also have a LG cleric of Erastil.

I disagree about there being a bias to chaos because of society being lawful. There are plenty of chaotic societies. Players just tend towards chaos because they want to be dicks.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Where the Paladin has to obey silly or even evil laws, the CG paragon would have to BREAK such laws, or even reasonable laws in specific circumstances.

They really don't. Paladins are deonteological, they know the right and wrong way of things and will not break those regardless of what the law of the land says. (Remember that there is a difference between societal laws and metaphysical Law, note the capitalizations.) A Paladin of Freedom doesn't have to break every law, they're teleological. They only break the law when it serves their goal of ensuring living creatures are free to pursue their own ends. (The reason we see them breaking so many laws is the fact that so many laws are designed to limit freedoms. Often for a good reason, but not everyone agrees with that reasoning.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Artificial 20 wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
... In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I play a lawful good ninja, if that helps alleviate the isolation. They cheer people up with hugs.

There might be a certain inherent bias to chaos in adventuring parties, as adventures tend to break from the orderly normalcy of lawful society.

Rejoice, for you are not alone. I myself have a LG alchemist, having gotten the mad scientist kick out of my system with my first one (who was LN oddly enough). I also have a LG cleric of Erastil.

I disagree about there being a bias to chaos because of society being lawful. There are plenty of chaotic societies. Players just tend towards chaos because they want to be dicks.

While not me personally (I have a deep and inherent disagreement with Lawful that I am not at all shy about stating on this forum) there is one member of my group who prefers Lawful. Granted he also favors Divine classes so Law has a mechanical impact for him, but still.

Shadow Lodge

I'm a filthy Neutral, so I get that. But then, Divine classes have plenty of non-Lawful options. I'm a big fan of Freedom and Travel domains, and my Oracles don't give too much credence to the Law.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Where the Paladin has to obey silly or even evil laws, the CG paragon would have to BREAK such laws, or even reasonable laws in specific circumstances.
They really don't. Paladins are deonteological, they know the right and wrong way of things and will not break those regardless of what the law of the land says. (Remember that there is a difference between societal laws and metaphysical Law, note the capitalizations.) A Paladin of Freedom doesn't have to break every law, they're teleological. They only break the law when it serves their goal of ensuring living creatures are free to pursue their own ends. (The reason we see them breaking so many laws is the fact that so many laws are designed to limit freedoms. Often for a good reason, but not everyone agrees with that reasoning.)

I don't think a deducible code of conduct is in any way appropriate to characters of Chaotic alignments, but that's possibly due to Paiso's stance on the matter making Chaos just a different (and lesser) type of rule.

Maybe then an option could be to make Chaos functionally amoral and restrict PCs to Lawful or Neutral alignments?

Silver Crusade

The main reason I went for the lawful good wizard was that the wizard in question was a ratfolk. I rarely play non good characters, so that was a given. He was lawful because rat-folk are generally supposed to be on account of coming from a large community-oriented warrens and because he's a studious nerdy wizard, and I figure he should be disciplined in his studies.

That's not to say there aren't chaotic researchers, but that's not the kind of researcher I imagine to this guy to be. I imagine him submitting to peer review and speaking cordially to his fellow scientists about various elements of Arcane Artistry of interest only to him and his colleagues.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Crayon wrote:
Maybe then an option could be to make Chaos functionally amoral and restrict PCs to Lawful or Neutral alignments?

That would just be the Good and Evil axis with different names.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Where the Paladin has to obey silly or even evil laws, the CG paragon would have to BREAK such laws, or even reasonable laws in specific circumstances.
They really don't. Paladins are deonteological, they know the right and wrong way of things and will not break those regardless of what the law of the land says. (Remember that there is a difference between societal laws and metaphysical Law, note the capitalizations.) A Paladin of Freedom doesn't have to break every law, they're teleological. They only break the law when it serves their goal of ensuring living creatures are free to pursue their own ends. (The reason we see them breaking so many laws is the fact that so many laws are designed to limit freedoms. Often for a good reason, but not everyone agrees with that reasoning.)

The LG Paladin does have to obey local laws. "You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet." Admittedly, I'm not sure I can think of any example of an evil law that doesn't violate a higher tenet, but I can think of plenty of silly ones that would fit the bill. Lots of areas have really archaic laws about who can sell liquor and when they can do it for example.

I agree with you on the Paladin of Freedom, actually. I just phrased my post poorly.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Where the Paladin has to obey silly or even evil laws, the CG paragon would have to BREAK such laws, or even reasonable laws in specific circumstances.
They really don't. Paladins are deonteological, they know the right and wrong way of things and will not break those regardless of what the law of the land says. (Remember that there is a difference between societal laws and metaphysical Law, note the capitalizations.) A Paladin of Freedom doesn't have to break every law, they're teleological. They only break the law when it serves their goal of ensuring living creatures are free to pursue their own ends. (The reason we see them breaking so many laws is the fact that so many laws are designed to limit freedoms. Often for a good reason, but not everyone agrees with that reasoning.)

The LG Paladin does have to obey local laws. "You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet." Admittedly, I'm not sure I can think of any example of an evil law that doesn't violate a higher tenet, but I can think of plenty of silly ones that would fit the bill. Lots of areas have really archaic laws about who can sell liquor and when they can do it for example.

I agree with you on the Paladin of Freedom, actually. I just phrased my post poorly.

The best example I can think of of a time that this would interfere with things is Fort Inevitable. There, you're expected to pay a 30% tax on all of your adventuring income.

Meanwhile, the Paladin of Freedom would immediately have to Stage a rebellion against the Hell Knights there.


Losing gracefully...
Eh. Nothing. I haven't played yet. I'll let ya know after I do.

Paladins though... I love this "Chaodin" dialogue, because it has such awesome ideas, but my (current) solution has a probably simpler (though not necessarily better) execution. Most here are familiar with the Vindictive Bastard archetype of PF1, right? And some may be aware 5e's Oathbreaker Paladin from the DMG? Essentially, wedding parts of these two ideas together. Like, in the CRB, an option for a Paladin who breaks her Oath to become, say, an Avenger (name unimportant as long as it's not Paladin). An Avenger would be an ex-Paladin more concerned with protecting her companions that the specifics of any Oaths. And an Avenger would get abilities like a PF1 Vindictive Bastard, but could still be good. Or neutral. Or even evil. Could even still be devoted to a deity. Just not above all else. And, this wouldn't even preclude things like a Chaodin down the road; rather, it would just allow for an option for people who want to play a devoted, principled, warrior, with some supernatural abilities - unlike Fighters - without having to be Lawful Good, in the CRB.

EDIT: And leave the people who want the name of Paladin to be LG only (relatively) happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*slowly wades in* My view was always to keep the code exactly as is, and allow anyone of any alignment to try and live up to it. I also heartily agree with graystone that alignment is more trouble than it's worth as a mechanic. As an RP touchstone, sure, but excise it out as a mechanic.

I'm not really ready to lose gracefully on that point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I'm a filthy Neutral

Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other."

Neutral President: All I know is my gut says maybe.

Neutral President: If I don't survive, tell my wife, "Hello."

President's Aide: Your Neutralness, it's a beige alert.

Zapp: What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Shinigami02 wrote:
While not me personally (I have a deep and inherent disagreement with Lawful that I am not at all shy about stating on this forum) there is one member of my group who prefers Lawful. Granted he also favors Divine classes so Law has a mechanical impact for him, but still.

Same. I know lots of people that go to the 'lawful' side, but I'm firmly in the chaotic and/or neutral side of things.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
I also heartily agree with graystone that alignment is more trouble than it's worth as a mechanic.

Welcome aboard! Here is our newsletter and we have meetings on tuesdays and thursdays...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally (my loosing gracefully), I find the paladin to be a character class design that falls outside of what Pathfinder has moved its classes towards (more open and flexible chassis for character concepts) and I was really hopping it was going to be moved into some kind of Archetype/s where could be accessible at level 1 and not take up so much content space for what feels like one type of sorcerer or wizard school, but I have clearly lost on that front.


rainzax wrote:

Got into Pathfinder halfway through it's run, was disappointed to hear my recently bought books were going to be obsolete, because they still feel new to me.

However, the skeleton for the new rules is built around the same bugs I created extensive houserules to solve. This means that we have similar goals in what a ruleset should be able to do.

Honestly I mostly like everything I've seen in blogs so far - especially the beginnings of codifying the exploration and downtime modes of play - to create baseline expectations similar to those that already exist for combat.

This is exactly the same thing I am feeling. I feel like even though the encounter creation rules give you the basis of making an encounter, My group seems to be able to overcome them pretty easily. When I tried 5e D&D the encounters were so close in some occasions that it literally could have came down to a botch dice roll which was better from a challenge stand point but not for a let the dice determine the players fate.

rainzax wrote:
Not going to participate in the playtest - I'm sure you all will do a fine job - because I will finish running my games with my playgroups with the materials we have.

I am hoping that you do participate in the playtest. I understand your running a game I am as well but I think being part of the playtest is the only way that myself as well as you and others on here will be able to help the design team put together a game that WE as players and customers alike will be able to shape into something that will be truly amazing and I am grateful that Paizo is giving us the ability to do this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm ready to accept that Paizo isn't going to release a paladin I will be satisfied with. Yes, they said they could one day release a paladin of other alignments than LG sometime later. But right now I'll predict a CN paladin will not exist in PF2 in a manner which doesn't seem like a straight downgrade from the LG version. I am ready to accept that though, not every class must be one I want to play.


UltimateDM wrote:
rainzax wrote:
Not going to participate in the playtest - I'm sure you all will do a fine job - because I will finish running my games with my playgroups with the materials we have.
I am hoping that you do participate in the playtest. I understand your running a game I am as well but I think being part of the playtest is the only way that myself as well as you and others on here will be able to help the design team put together a game that WE as players and customers alike will be able to shape into something that will be truly amazing and I am grateful that Paizo is giving us the ability to do this.

I will participate as an observer. But I simply don't have the time to find another group, sign them up, and commit to the process of providing meaningful feedback. My current group I'm not going to shake up because we got a good thing going, and why complicate that?

As such, though I will surely have opinions, they won't be backed by live experience using things in the document, and therefore my feedback would be only of the least helpful kind.

Besides, personally I'd rather "play" than "playtest" because then it won't feel like work.

Cheers!

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Losing Gracefully All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion