Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Having a paladin with no code to have moral conflicts about would sound like a waste of time to me - Yes I'm a CN Paladin - I must randomly roll to see if I kill help or just look after myself or I'm in violation of my personal and completely variable non code of ethics.
    This is exactly what I mean about the original (1st Ed) descriptions being written inconsistently. Chaotic means valuing freedom, and Neutral means not caring how you achieve it, so CN in no way implies randomness: it is absolute consistency in the belief that more freedom is always better. It is just as rigorous and nonrandom a code as LG. Acting purely randomly is in one sense *Lawful* Neutral -- you roll some dice, and do exactly what they tell you, no matter what it is. It is in another sense True Neutral -- you sometimes act LE, sometimes NG, etc., depending on what the dice show. It is IMO the opposite of true CN, which is always making up your own mind and going your own way.

    This is also another example of precisely why I don't discuss alignments with players -- everyone has a very clear idea of what the term "Chaotic Neutral" means to them, but none of them agree, and all of them are supported by some official source. For example, the 3e PHB supports my interpretation much more strongly than yours, while the 1e PHB supports yours more than mine.


    Ryan

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Personally I always saw Paks as a CG paladin. The chaotic part being more relevant when church politics conflicted with what the Paladin see's as the "pure god inspired rightness" of the situation.
    And yet here, we agree completely. Doing what your superiors tell you is Lawful. Doing what your own conscience tells you is Chaotic.

    Which therefore implies to me that Chaotic people have much stronger moral codes of conduct than Lawful ones, because Chaotics do what they do because they think it's right, and Lawfuls do what they do because they would otherwise be punished. =)

    Again, the system is a muddled and misleading system for characterizing human behavior, so I think it's best to just discard it and move on.


    Ryan

  3. #33
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Actually there is a very good argument that doing what you think is right is just ego indulgnence (prioritizing your aesthetics in a philosophicl sense, but really just acting on superficial feelings most of the time) while doing what an authority says requires thoughtful consideration of the authority to examine its position, since authorities almost never cover all bases in advance, all mitigating factors, &c, &c.

    This assumes that your frame of reference is that you hang around with thoughtful lawfuls (as Haelyn's high wisdom, text consulting priests are depicted) and that the chaotics you encounter are living the unexamined life.

  4. #34
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Having a paladin with no code to have moral conflicts about would sound like a waste of time to me - Yes I'm a CN Paladin - I must randomly roll to see if I kill help or just look after myself or I'm in violation of my personal and completely variable non code of ethics. pfffft.
    I wasn't saying a paladin should have no moral code, merely not to use alignment as shorthand for that code - right out the paladins 'ten commandments' or such like and you will likely get a far more consistently recognisable set of moral strictures than if you say 'LG - we all know what that means right?'. Much as the old cavalier had a chivalric code independent of alignment, having a paladin follow a stated written code stops people arguing about what lawful good means.

    I've had DM's argue over slaying prisoners (the demon said it surrendered so you should not have killed it, mercy is part of your code and your alignment is now imperilled), not charging to a senseless death (your L4 paladin should have tried to fight the giants, getting the ranger to lead them away while you had the thief sneak in and rescue the children is unheroic, as a paladin you need to set an example of heroism...)

    So far in this thread we have argued over the meaning of law/chaos, whether morality comes from the law/chaos axis or the good/evil one, whether the morality should be modern or medieval, etc, etc. If you can't agree on what the terms mean, then they fail in their job as shorthand to describe personality and morality.

    I'm personally in favour of making a paladin simply one example of a holy warrior - you can have priests of any alignment, why not paladins? Different powers to represent the different gods, different moral codes to represent tenets of faith, and off you go...

  5. #35
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    There are some very nice honor codes out there today. They are a little harder to track than alignment, but part of that tracking is because they accomodate pennance.

    Honor codes based on conventional chivalry usually have seven or so qualities, and you have some flexibility about which ones you have to pay attention to. And that's the stuff out there for standard chivalry. Devising an honor code for Khinasi knights of Avani could just as easily be done with some tweaking, and so on with every clear ethos.

    This stuff works much better than alignment, because you can see what the effects are.

    • Battling a foe or beast of a CR equal to your own in single combat: +1 Honor, +1 for each additional +1 CR
    • Breaking your vow in a minor fashion (taking a drink on a fasting day, arriving later than promised, failing to perform a very minor task which was promised): -1 to -3
    • Taking up arms against a liege who has done you no wrong: -10 Honor. If they have wronged you, every point of honor they have lost in their dealings with you reduces the points lost by your betrayal. Likewise if they have earned honor by their conduct toward you, this compounds the cost of your betrayal.

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    81
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    To me to hold to a set of difficult principles is a far harder task than to hold to none.

    My personal prejudices against CN Paladins aside I guess the point of my short tirade was that to have the Paladin title you need to have some sort of "Honour" code to hold to.
    The Gm of the situation would have to discuss the honour code relevant to whatever alignment the paladin is and have a mutual understanding with the player.

    I have never found that having alignments that are amoral/relativistic and/or evil restrict the character particularly - If you enforce alignments for evil characters then prehaps they should never be allowed to commit good acts - even as cover for later evil. It is easy enough to find justification for evil acts when you have a strong code of Lawful Good - justifying that you commited a good act to hide your true nature or for the promotion of later greater evil is so open to interpretation that I've found it to be no restriction at all.

    I've also never found that it lends itself to a heroic style of play.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Religious issues...
    By prince_dios in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 08:59 PM
  2. Balance issues
    By Thelandrin in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 04:19 PM
  3. Ceremony/Regent Death Issues
    By Raesene Andu in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2004, 09:50 PM
  4. Balance Issues
    By Yair in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2003, 09:56 PM
  5. Clergy Alignment vs. God Alignment
    By Azrai in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-02-2002, 10:10 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.