Please read what I have to say before you auto flame me. A paladin is a champion of his god, therefore it makes sense to me that a paladin can be of any good-evil alignment. If the paladin is a champion of an evil god, he is probably evil; if he follows a good god, he is probably good. The reason that I am starting to believe that a paladin MUST be lawful, however, is because the paladin follows an oath. If he breaks that oath he is no longer a paladin.
A lawful character would have no issue following a code and naturally would be an ideal candidate for paladin(ship/hood?) He would live by the oath and make it his purpose in life.
A character which many would consider neutral because he may break a few rules of the land would, in fact, be a lawful character as long as he follows his oath. Remember, to break the oath (without good reason, which can still be reason to lose your favor) is to stop being a paladin. So a character who follows the path of his god without fail, yet breaks some of the laws of the kingdom, is still lawful from what I have gathered because his actions are guided by a set of rules set by his deity. He/she just prioritizes his oath over the rules of the land.
I don't understand how a chaotic character can ever be justified as being a paladin. Even if you were to follow a chaotic god, you would need to follow the rules set in place by that god to be his/her champion. If the god wants you to wreak havoc, you must do that when the opportunity arises. That is still following a code set by a deity.
The purpose of this post is to get my opinion/realization out there and gather some feedback. If I am wrong, please explain why. This is my understanding of a lawful character/paladin and I am trying to figure out how to roleplay my character correctly. I almost always play a NG character, so when I made my paladin that's how I started out. I realized recently, however, that I should probably label myself as lawful because I adhere strictly to my oath and my god's rules. I am a paladin of Kelemvor btw, if anybody is curious.
The argument that comitting yourself to a code, any code, even a chaotic one, is a lawful act has some merit. I however like to think that both paladin oaths and alignments have enough wriggle room to allow a young hotheaded rasqual to not instantly fall out of his dieties grace. In particular if that diety is chaotic.
I guess my counter argumeny boils down to: "even chaotic characters can perform lawful acts, and adhere to codes, if the reason for doing so is sufficiently compelling"
TheBDU wrote:
As I said in another thread, it is campaign specific for me: in Greyhawk, paladins must be LG, and human.
Since the AD&D days, I've always been of the mindset that paladins had to be not just lawful, but good as well. The introduction of oaths in 5e and their respective tenants, as well as a valid explanation/justification for paladins of NG and LN alignments and some great discussions on this board finally allowed me to accept these concepts.
But I have to agree with you that the LG and LN alignments sound the most logical because, like you, I associate a Code of Conduct with Lawfulness.
Alignment has always been one of the most feverishly debated topics. Here's a link to some great paladin specific, alignment conversation you may have missed.
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4120631
Added: I made a paladin of Kelemvor as well (great choice), since I liked the lore behind the new God of the Dead's hatred for Undead and wanted to roll up a paladin/undead hunter type character. Even though Kelemvor is a LN god, I chose to have my paladin be the classic LG simply because I prefered the Oath of Devotion tenants/abilities and knew I would play more of a LG alignment.
Angel7 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Ehh.. any time someone claims that all members of a class need be a particular alignment, I think they are just being close minded.
Alignment in and of itself is artificial, so naturally trying to retrict things by alignment is artificial.
You want to know how you get a Lawful Evil Paladin really damn easy?
The Paladin's oath is to protect their lord or their church and the lord or church is corrupted and yet they feel compelled by their oath to continue to protect it regardless of personal cost to them. Bingo! Lawful Evil.
You have an "avenging" Paladin who takes the avenging much too far. Paladins are warriors, their primary power is SMITE. The moment you say you are going to do good through being violent and murdering people in the name of "justice", there is going to be a point where you are going to go too far. Sure, at first you might start with clearly evil beings. But then over time one's ego gets inflated, their idea of acceptable behavior narrows further and further... before you know it, they are slaughtering neutral and good being for being part of the wrong culture or worshipping the wrong god. And not only is that Paladin going Lawful Evil, but all Paladins trained by that one.
The moment you remove the Kindergarten mentality of "alignment" and realize that real people who perform acts of various alignments under various circumstances presented to them and that no one is this world is going to be static, not people and not institutions, nor is it anything but pitifully childish to have anyone in the world aware of something like "alignment" and instead realize that they have ideals and people they value and ambitions and goals...
It is natural for Paladin's to slip out of Lawful Good because their whole thing is having a self-centered narrow view of the world and condemning and murdering others.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Most Paladins are Lawful Good. This is simply because the oaths that they swear require them to help others (a Good act) and that they are of the mind to swear and stick to a code of behaviour (a Lawful act.) Thus the path of a Paladin will have the most appeal to those of Lawful Good disposition already.
However.
A single act/trait does not define a creature's alignment. An Evil creature might care for its family, or have a soft spot for dogs, yet still be Evil. A group of lying, cheating pirates might have a rule that they don't hurt orphans, but they are still overall Chaotic.
A Paladin might still do the Goodly acts required by her oath, while overall being Evil (generally Oath of Vengeance Paladins) only observing the formalities required. If keeping to their Oath is the only Lawful aspect of the Paladin's behaviour, they can well be Chaotic overall. (Oath of the Ancients generally.)
Also bear in mind, as pointed out by others already, that Paladins do not have to follow a deity. The power of their Oath is enough to grant a Paladin their powers if they do not worship another source of power.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
I played a number of paladin characters over the years. In general, the way I handled it was to focus on the tenets of the code or god that the character served rather than an alignment per se. That usually kept things on track. Basically I didn't worry about the alignment and stuck to the tenets of the faith, whatever they were. Being loyal to a particular code doesn't necessarily imply being lawful, IMO.
Example: An NPC in my 3.5 campaign was built using the Paladin of Freedom class in Unearthed Arcana. She served Selune, the Goddess of the Moon. (I'd lifted a bunch of FR gods for my campaign, though the world was my own and they ended up remixed a little.) She wasn't above underhanded techniques, dealing with rogues, or going around the authorities if it helped her cause, which was exterminating slavery from the region she lived in. I wouldn't characterize her as lawful at all, but she was definitely a good fit as a paladin. She ended up clashing with the more lawfully oriented priesthood a fair bit, not over goals but definitely over methods.
My advice: Ignore alignment.
Play your character according to your conception of their beliefs, oath and personality. Think of why they look at the world that way, how it ties into their life history.
I'd work out a simple list of tenets of what your Paladin's god expects you to do (3 or so is fine), and then write yourself an Oath based on that!
The term "Lawful" has tended to mix in alot of concepts that aren't at all mutually dependent, and possibly contradictory.
From the top of my head here's aspects of "Lawful":
Respect and adherence for the social expectations, conventions and traditions of your culture.
Respect and adherence to the written law.
Beliefs in strong government and establishments like guilds.
Belief in cultural expectations over individual choice.
Belief in command structure
Self-discipline
A personal code of honour.
Keeping your word.
Adherence to the intent of a written or verbal contract.
Adherence to the letter of a written or verbal contract.
Belief in fundamental cosmic order.
Belief in predetermination over choice.
Personally I think a lot of the iconic "Chaotic Good" characters (e.g. Robin Hood) incorporated aspects of lawful, esp. "Being a man of your word" when the law and government is corrupt.
Alignment is meant to be a label or a tool to help people think about this in relatively simple terms, not a straight jacket. Sadly even the very books that used to say this exact phrase then shoved in a ton of mechanical consequences and penalties.
cranebump wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
ive always kind of looked at paladins as religious fanatics like bin laden and kirk kameron.
imo all paladins should be evil as well. :P
the paladin is someone who devotes himself entirely to a thing external to himself. in the context of D&D this is always a deity.
that is why there cannot be rogueish paladins.
devotion = strict adherence to the rules and values of whatever you are devoted to. this is lawful by definition.
a rogue is by definition a char that rejects and breaks rules others are devoted to.
Pangur wrote:
Geeks can be lawful too.
Lord Vader and Emperor Palpatine are both Lawful Evil to those of the Rebel Alliance, Luke Skywalker Neutral Good, Princess Leia Chaotic Good and Han Solo Chaotic Neutral to themselves.
its all perspective, The rebel alliance are Chaotic Evil and the Emperor is Lawful Good, that is the view of the Emperer and Lord Vader. Master Yoda is a dangerous criminal.
The Sword of Truth series- Jagang considers himself Lawful Good, yet to Richard and Khalan he is most definitely Chaotic Evil.
Just because you are chaotic, does not mean that you don't follow rules. Chaos Theory shows this mathematically. That in so called random systems, there is a simple order.
In Greek mythology, either Order is created from Chaos, or both are the children of Nyx (Night) which would explain why Zeus was a tad scared of Nyx.
If you want your Paladins to be lawful...fine... If you want them to be any other alignment or for their only restriction to be their Oath, then that is also fine. It's a game and a very big one which deals with many multiverses each a version by the respective DM and their players. So the only limits are what are agreed upon as you play at home or if you do AL play, as their rules dictate.
Shasarak wrote:
The following struck me as odd...
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
RCanine wrote:
CCS wrote:
CCS wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
This notion that paladins must be Lawful because they follow a personal oath, code, or discipline, arises from thinking that Alignment is internally focused. It is not. It is externally focused.
Alignment describes ethical and moral leanings, and has little to no bearing on a character's personality/temperament. The Law-Chaos axis of alignment describes a character's attitude towards the rule of law -- towards order being imposed from outside themselves, not towards order they choose internally. It's about Law-Chaos on a SOCIETAL level, not a personal one. A paladin or monk who is highly disciplined, dedicated, even ascetic, could swear an oath to fight oppression and thus be Chaotic; since they are internally ordered and need no external guidance they might see societal laws as an imposition on themselves and others. Likewise, a character who is temperamental and has trouble keeping their emotions in check could easily be Lawful, favoring an ordered society because it keeps them grounded.
Characters of ANY ALIGNMENT can have a strict personal code (or not). That's up to the player (or DM if they're an NPC). Alignment merely guides what the nature of their personal code might be. A Lawful Good character might follow a code of "Uphold the law for the good of society," but a Chaotic Neutral character could just as easily follow a strict ethos of "Always stick it to the man."
Gatt wrote:
CCS wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Adherence to a code has nothing to do with being of Lawful alignment. If that were the case, every anarchist group would be lawful, even though the destruction of the law is their entire focus.
I agree for the most part, especially for oath of devotion and oath of vengeance. I could see oath of the ancients allowing for more chaotic or neutral flavor since it is tied to nature so much.
I think that alignment in general was a touchy subject for some players, so keeping restrictions off served WotC well.
Let the campaign/DM decide.
Personally, I love the Lawful Good feature of the old paladin. It spoke to me.
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
The origin of the term Paladin comes from the Song of Roland, where they are companions of Charlemagne's vassal. They swore loyalty to Charlemagne over oath to God or law. In origin they are neither lawful nor divine adherents, and in the above work are considered warriors rather than any divine order.
Which doesn't mean much, as D&D is more concerned with fantastic elements than literal/hisrotical ones. However, even within this more loosely defined archetype, we have examples of groups whose divine adherents would not be Lawful, even with the taking of an oath. A Taoist Paladin would strive to be True Neutral, for example. The laws of "nature" would be more important to such a Paladin than the laws of man. Likewise a Paladin of Eris or Lolth would almost by definition have to be Chaotic, as the deity would practically demand it.
I like the general concept of "Most Paladins should be Lawful.", as it does a fine example of mirroring the most common mindset within the archetype. However, as a hard and fast rule, I'd argue "Paladins should have an alignment that reflects their deity's desires." would be more accurate. Yes, you are taking an oath, but to that deity's ideals. You can't do that with some deities and a Lawful alignment.
arnwolf666 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Lawful does not equal following an oath or a set of personal beliefs. Lawful is following the laws of the land. Robinhood was not lawful (he stole an inherently unlafwul act). However he did follow an oath and code of conduct... steal from the rich to give to the poor. This was generally a good act. So oath following robinhood was a unlawful evil character. But the fact of the matter is that doesn't sit right with most people.
The problem with defining a paladin as lawful good is that it basically equates a paladin to a holy knight of the christian religion. It's far too restrictive IMO especially since there are soo many other Holy Knight concepts to explore than just the Christian one.
Christian Missionaries going into muslim countries are actually being unlawful (by those societies standards) but are at the same time following God's laws. And there you have it. A Christian missionary trying to spread the gospel in muslim countires is both lawful and unlawful at the same time. The concept of "lawfulness" only works when you know which law you are speaking of.
Alignments have never served any purpose except to give control freaks and one-true-wayists a license to dictate how you should play your character. The game is better off without them.
Alignments are wonderful guidelines that can help players aspire to truly heroic heights. They should never shackle a player to waste her/his time and reduce their hobby to drudgework. If you don't like Alignments, don't play with them. But some of us wish we were heroes and heroines, like Frodo, King Arthur, Pwyll Pen Annwn, or even St. Joan of Arc. Alignments can be wonderful tools to help us assess how we are doing, and to inspire us to try harder, to be more than merely what we were born as. That's why I like Tolkien, Evangeline Walton, and like writers who spun tales of goodness and light shining in the darkness. That is why I dislike 'Game of Thrones', save only for Brienne of Tarth. And I suspect Martin will ruin her soon enough.
A lawful intentionally follows a code, while a chaotic naturally does so.
The code of "Be excellent to each other. Party on, dudes!" isn't particularly lawful, as an example.
I am a huge fan of the classic LG Paladin, and dislike the chaotic and evil paladins. The reason for this is that the original Paladins, the Twelve Peers from Charlemagnes court and later examples (the knights of Arthurs round table etc) and their legends are the basis of the heroic, chivalrous holy knight.
as they ultimately reported to the king, and thus the church, they would be considered lawful good (based on the stories, not actual history per say) the other type, evil or chaotic, really can't exist in that Paladin means the opposite of these.
that being said, the concept of a champion of evil or chaos or any allignment, is valid, and usong the mechanics of the class makes sense. I just don't like using the name of Paladin to refer to them. Such as calling an evil "paladin" a Blackguard.
Gerard_Lee wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
***Edited for Unnecessary 'Knee Jerk' Reaction
What was I thinking?***
Hello Bluenose and FallingIcicle.
Actually at first I was going to say some kind of critical things to you both. But you know, there is a bit of truth in what you said, even though you meant it poorly.
I did say I think Alignments make useful tools and reminders, yes. And if labels and writing it on my character sheet helps, I will use that. Perhaps that really does make them crutches after all. But I am not a strong person, and if I need a crutch, I will use it.
I was tempted to react rather rudely to you both, for example. But I was reminded that this is not the right or mature way to act. A crutch? Maybe. And if it helps me when I 'get it wrong', good
TheBDU wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Gerard_Lee wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Gerard_Lee wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gerard_Lee wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DLfan wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Qmark wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
MrCustomer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
Yeah, no. I'll just put it out there that my next character is going to be a chaotic good paladin (of vengeance).
stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's family is a good example.
is stealing a loaf of bread in this context a lawful or unlawful action? While it violates the legal laws of the land, and the conceptual law, the right of ownership, it is a person's duty to provide food for their family, "duty" is a form of lawful behavior, and it can be argued that a person is legally obliged to provide food for child in their care, the extension of this would be the arguement that one would be legally obliged to steal a loaf of bread to provide needed food for a child in one's care, if that was their only means of providing food.
in the US and most other countries, as well as international law, recognize "Necessity" as a legal defence in criminal law and have definitions for it.
Being Lawful does not mean blind obedience to the laws of the land, it means the more general concept or order, tradition, duty and honour and justice. A Paladin could violate a good many laws and still remain lawful.
Example the 3.5 paladin's code was that they "respect legitimate authority" is says respect, not blindly obey the laws. As mentioned above, "Necessity" is a legaly acceptable reason to break the laws. This isn't a modern sentiment, king david (stone age) stole the bread from God's temple (the okdest example of the use of Necessity I could think of) despite him being arguably a Lawful Good alignment. a Lawful Good Paladin could easily break laws if it was a necessity for the greater good.
The second part of that is "legitimate authority" which means only those laws and authorities who are good (or work to the good) laws that violated the Paladin's sense of good could also be broken. Such as Freeing Slaves, and fighting against other injustices commiteed by a government. a Paladin could consider laws that wre injust, or that oppressed the people or caused harm to the innocent as not being legitimate.
another reason for a Paladin to "break the law" is because, in many settings, he is the law. That is outside of a city I. Direct control of a king (or other authority), meaning the more uncivilized areas, someone such as a Paladin would be viewed as being the lawful authority. Think of The knights of The Round Table. This presumes cases where the Paladin has sworn his oath to a particular authority, or is a member of some Authority, he in turn speaks and acts as an officer of that entities authority, which can override local laws and authority (at least from the Paladin's perspective, the local authority may have their own opinions on the matter)
Devils-Advocate wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
wildefox wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
The mechanical concept of paladin is heavy warrior with divine powers. Nothing in there is alignment specific, so even if PALADINS are supposed to be a specific lignment it's simpler to just have one clas for all the alignments than reprinting essentially the same class multiple times.
Alignment is not traditionally handled well in dnd, specifically the discordance between alignment as personal and alignment as cosmic. I started in 3e and not once was it stated specifically whether alignment was personal, cosmic, or both. Lacking any reason to care most classes treat alignment as personal, if they think about it at all. Other classes use abilities and have outsider allies based on their alignment, or more specifically their allegience asfar as the gods go. So a NG cleric might have more cred with the angels or the Azata depending on their god of choice. Furthermore a consistent philosophy is never stated, there's no specified framework fo determining the finer points of what is good or evil which means that good and evil are defined by the players and the DM, and this can be damaging to the player-dm interaction because as the arbiter of 'DA RULES the DM is effectively given the responsibility to evaluate the philosophy of the player character as long as there are stringent alignment mechanics in play. This is asking for trouble because even people who agree on what is good, will often have different priorities within that list, one will value protecting their home, while another might place the safety of children first, these both sound good but are not the same thing and the two interests may easily come into conflict.
kalil wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Angel7 wrote:
Player 1: "I love 5e! It harkens back to the glory days. It has a great pre-3e feel. I just can't get enough of it!"
Player 2: "Yeah, like the old days when paladins were lawful good knights in shining armor..."
Player 1: "Well, okay. Everything but that."
SteveMND wrote:
DLfan wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The main things I didn't like about 5E were easy to change for my homebrew setting. It was pretty much stop using the concentration rules for spell duration and do many spells like 1E/2E or 3.x depending on the spell. Really had nothing against the reduced spell slots as I had trouble with 13+ level playing in the past, though I did lots of it. I do not have shapechanging and polymorphing affecting the spellcasters hit points. Various little things, but I really liked 5E as a whole. I actually liked getting a save every round for hold person and charms. I still like the Ghoul Touch spell that is not in 5E. I stole the sorcery points from sorcerer and gave wizard's arcana points that did what sorcery points did for sorcerers. And wizards are still not the least bit overpowering. Conjurations were tweaked a bit, but not much.
Gerard_Lee wrote:
Hi Bluenose,
I apologize, I mistook your intentions and presumed badly about you. I was probably hyper-sensitive that someone might disagree with a very dear and precious notion of mine. That was very immature of me, I am very sorry. It took me awhile to see what I now believe you are actually saying, and I see truth in it. May you always share your insights freely and speak your mind, even when folk misunderstand or even villainize you falsely!
Wishing you a lifetime of great gaming!
Gerard
My paladin is neutral good and will take the oath of devotion when she hits level 3. I don't see her as having any problems sticking to the tenets of that oath. Nothing in there is incompatible with the neutral good alignment.
souldoubt wrote:
In our current official 5e campaign I'm playing a Hound Archon Paladin, His alignment is Neutral Good. I'm going Oath of Vengeance when I hit level 3, the way I see it is going down that path involves being able to sully your own personal righteousness in order to combat the greater evil. I don't see anything lawful about that, and I'm glad I don't have to be lawful to play this character. In my opinion deviating from alignment just happens naturally for characters are not static they act, change and grow as individuals. As far as I know our DM can throw things at us that make us question our morality, what is right and wrong and at what price must true justice come at etc for this is the stuff that could change our character's outlook on life.
In other words to each group their own, whether alignment matters or not is something the group should discuss deliberately and maturely. And in the case of Paladins I'm glad they lifted the whole must be LG or bust just to play the class...I never liked that.
I've always been of the opinion that your actions should dictate your alignment, not that your alignment should dictate your actions. I think this was one of the issues that has made the 'absolute morality' style alignment systems in RPGs less and less popular over time. I'm pleased to see alignment having a less-mechanical and more-flavorful feel to it in 5e.
SteveMND wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I don't think Chris's chicken/egg analogy was meant to literally ask which comes first. It seems more like he was trying to illustrate the fact that, yes, your actions do determine alignment, but your alignment also influences your actions. There's too much back-and-forth between the character's actions and their alignment, to say definitively that either is dictated entirely by the other.
Counsel for the Dark One speaks true. Funny that...
Devils-Advocate wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Yeah, it seems to come down to some not knowing/understanding how to handle/implement alignment, best for those who can't, to ditch it.
But, like... If you didn't expect your character's actions in-game to be aligned with Law and Good, why did you chose the Lawful Good alignment? Certainly circumstances will arise that you did not predict, and you may find your character moving in a new direction in response to those situations - maybe even enough that an alignment shift is called for. But it's rather silly in my opinion to suggest that your alignment has no influence on the way you play your character. Otherwise, why would you even have it? Are you really saying you've never had to make a difficult in-character choice and decided "well, my character is Chaotic Neutral, so in this situation he probably would just take the money and run."?
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Huh. I guess some people likes to use sledgehammers when a scalpel will do.