D&D 5E June 27 Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment and Legendary Creatures

[Imaro]

A possible interpretation of paladinhood is that the paladin is the champion of a cause such as a belief system, a god, a religion, an organisation, or a race. One could do this in a chaotic or lawful manner. A chaotic paladin could operate alone or in small groups, have few personal rules (apart from his or her code), and pay no heed to most laws or authorities.

I agree that following a code is more lawful than chaotic but a chaotic person doesn't have to be 100% chaotic in everything they do. Alignment works best, I think, as a spectrum of behaviour. By this interpretation of paladins, they don't have to exemplify their own alignment, so a CN paladin isn't going to be the most chaotic being one could ever meet, but still falls within the CN range.

I can see your take, but IMO (and in my campaigns that have featured them) the traditional paladin is supposed to be (or at least strive to be) a paragon and exemplar of whatever force he is empowered by, I guess this is why it's hard for me to accept a chaotic paladin because in my mind the two (alignment and defining trait of class) are very much in conflict. I could see a champion of chaos. In fact prince Gaynor the Damned from the Elric stories is an example of such a character though he doesn't behave as a paladin, or any holy-knight based archetype, would.

That said, it is what it is, WotC has decided, and I doubt that decision is going to stop me from giving next a chance (since it didn't for 4e) but I certainly am not a fan of paladins with no alignment restrictions whatsoever.

 

[Imaro]

It does depend on specific circumstances, I think, much like a classical paladin (Is defying the church an act of Chaos or Evil? It depends....), but essentially, things that counter-act that freedom, for themselves, or others, or things that work against change. Preservation of the status quo is the CN "paladin's" version of worshiping a demon.

The site that I linked to has a really good overview of the kinds of actions that a CN character would forbid themselves to do, and I imagine a CN examplar would take those prohibitions more seriously than other CN characters (much the same way you can be Lawful Good without being a Paladin, and only one gets all crisis-y if they have to break a law).

Some examples might be:

• If you accept a knighthood/lordship/other position of authority.
• If you put down a rebellion.
• If you put someone else's feelings ahead of your own.
• If you support a king/emperor/president/police officer
• If you take prisoners.
• If you sign a contract.

I think we can all agree that, if the Chaotic alignment has much meaning, a character who did those kinds of things on a regular basis probably wouldn't rate as Chaotic. Which means that a CN exemplar would be especially sensitive to these actions (a normal CN character could probably do one or two of them on occasion without really risking anything), and may "fall" because the alignment energies they use to perform their semi-divine mystical abilities aren't as pure and heady for the character anymore.

And then fallen CN crusaders who TRULY abandon their worldview become unthinking, authoritarian, brainwashed LN automatons (the CN's version of the blackguard!).

I guess I see the very act of restraining one's actions through a code as being deliberately non-chaotic and instead letting order be imposed upon one's behavior. how can you claim to be a paragon or exemplar of chaos when you're very actions are a tribute to order and predictability... which, in my mind, is the issue with a chaotic paladin and any type of code.

I'd much rather him be something like a modified barbarian (with no code) who uses unpredictable (perhaps just in the fiction) rages and a wild fighting style perhaps based off unexpected moves and surprising combinations than for him to be based off a knight-archetype with a code... It just feels like shoving a square peg in a round hole to me. That may just be me though... I just don't feel like the paladin is in and of itself a "generic" enough class to have no alignment restrictions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess I see the very act of restraining one's actions through a code as being deliberately non-chaotic and instead letting order be imposed upon one's behavior. how can you claim to be a paragon or exemplar of chaos when you're very actions are a tribute to order and predictability... which, in my mind, is the issue with a chaotic paladin and any type of code.

So, I think you're kind of struggling here with how you define "Chaos." Your definition is broad and inclusive, which is muddying the waters between Chaos and other alignments. If Chaos means "you can't be defined," then you pretty much just broke alignment, since Chaos is defined, and it is distinct from other alignments. If it's not, then there's no reason to have any alignment: everyone is Chaotic (even if they think they're Lawful), since Chaotic people can act lawful, too (but not vice-versa). If there's nothing a Chaotic character can do to be considered non-Chaotic, because "Chaotic" encompasses every possible action, then there's no reason to make the distinction. If there ARE things that Chaotic characters can't do, then those are the things that a CN exemplar might lose their status as such for doing. Chaotic isn't "anything goes," it is "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Which specifically means that what does not go is people telling anyone else what to goes.

In my view, Chaotic is a specific kind of worldview, one that maximizes personal freedom and individuality. This is in opposition to Lawful, which is a worldview that maximizes personal responsibility and unity. And people who do a little bit of both (ie: they like to be free, but they also like to live as part of a society) are, like most people, ethically Neutral. Chaotic isn't random, it's personal, egoistic, even a little libertarian and anarchic.

Basically, if you imagine Chaotic in alignment terms being this sort of all-encompassing, broad, formless thing that one can never really fail at being, there's no real reason to have a law/chaos distinction in your games, anyway. Everyone just gets to be Chaotic, because it is clearly superior, since there's nothing you can do to violate it.

 

[Imaro]

So, I think you're kind of struggling here with how you define "Chaos." Your definition is broad and inclusive, which is muddying the waters between Chaos and other alignments. If Chaos means "you can't be defined," then you pretty much just broke alignment, since Chaos is defined, and it is distinct from other alignments. If it's not, then there's no reason to have any alignment: everyone is Chaotic (even if they think they're Lawful), since Chaotic people can act lawful, too (but not vice-versa). If there's nothing a Chaotic character can do to be considered non-Chaotic, because "Chaotic" encompasses every possible action, then there's no reason to make the distinction. If there ARE things that Chaotic characters can't do, then those are the things that a CN exemplar might lose their status as such for doing. Chaotic isn't "anything goes," it is "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Which specifically means that what does not go is people telling anyone else what to goes.

In my view, Chaotic is a specific kind of worldview, one that maximizes personal freedom and individuality. This is in opposition to Lawful, which is a worldview that maximizes personal responsibility and unity. And people who do a little bit of both (ie: they like to be free, but they also like to live as part of a society) are, like most people, ethically Neutral. Chaotic isn't random, it's personal, egoistic, even a little libertarian and anarchic.

Basically, if you imagine Chaotic in alignment terms being this sort of all-encompassing, broad, formless thing that one can never really fail at being, there's no real reason to have a law/chaos distinction in your games, anyway. Everyone just gets to be Chaotic, because it is clearly superior, since there's nothing you can do to violate it.

Well this isn't what I'm saying... I am saying acting in an orderly, pre-determined fashion (such as following a constructed code with binding, pre-determined and predictable behavioral patterns) is anti-chaotic, building or abiding permanency (again the whole code thing), is a pretty non-chaotic thing...Tradition, stagnation, stability, bureaucracy,civilization are all pretty much anti-chaotic. I am not claiming that chaotic encompasses all behavior I am saying accepting, following and letting your behavior be dictated by a formal code of any kind is the anti-thesis of chaos and personal freedom.

Edit: And this seems to line up pretty much with how you are defining chaos in your own words.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am saying acting in an orderly, pre-determined fashion (such as following a constructed code with binding, pre-determined and predictable behavioral patterns) is anti-chaotic, building or abiding permanency (again the whole code thing), is a pretty non-chaotic thing

So, to help maybe parse this: Orderly is non-chaotic. Pre-determined is non-chaotic. But having patterns and consistency isn't non-chaotic. Having patterns and consistency is how one defines what alignment one is. If you ALWAYS choose to do what you want, then that's a pattern, a consistency, and a way to define you as being in one alignment (but not in another). And if you are voluntarily signing up for an ethos that indicates freedom and autonomy, you can fail that ethos by not supporting these principles.

It's not a formal code. It's a freely chosen idea, coming from entirely within yourself, that you consistently and regularly apply.

Habits and tendencies and patterns aren't Ant-Chaotic (or else Chaotic people better stop their Lawful beating hearts that thud at a regular rate and their Lawful breathing lungs that inhale at a regular rate and stop speaking in coherent languages with their Lawful patterns of grammar and mutual comprehensibility!). Chaos as an alignment is defined by the tendency to support a certain worldview, as any alignment is. Chaotic people can be extremists and zealots and intolerant.

What can cause a CN paladin to fall? Doing things that are not chaotic.

 

[Imaro]

So, to help maybe parse this: Orderly is non-chaotic. Pre-determined is non-chaotic. But having patterns and consistency isn't non-chaotic. Having patterns and consistency is how one defines what alignment one is. If you ALWAYS choose to do what you want, then that's a pattern, a consistency, and a way to define you as being in one alignment (but not in another). And if you are voluntarily signing up for an ethos that indicates freedom and autonomy, you can fail that ethos by not supporting these principles.

But once you subscribe to a particular code you are no longer living that ethos... you are living by a code which is pre-determined and orderly which in turn means it is non-chaotic.

It's not a formal code. It's a freely chosen idea, coming from entirely within yourself, that you consistently and regularly apply.

whether it is freely chosen or not in the beginning, once you choose that idea and consistently and regularly apply it... it has become formal...

a: following or according with established form, custom, or rule...

Habits and tendencies and patterns aren't Ant-Chaotic (or else Chaotic people better stop their Lawful beating hearts that thud at a regular rate and their Lawful breathing lungs that inhale at a regular rate and stop speaking in coherent languages with their Lawful patterns of grammar and mutual comprehensibility!). Chaos as an alignment is defined by the tendency to support a certain worldview, as any alignment is. Chaotic people can be extremists and zealots and intolerant.

Habits and tendencies aren't... patterns if consciously subscribed to and followed formally are. There is a big difference between speaking a language naturally, and speaking a language while making sure the words are pronounced perfectly, and your formal grammar is impeccable at all times. One allows for chaos to naturally come about... or not. The other is actively seeks to minimize chaos and increase order. A heart doesn't beat at the same rate at all times, and no one breathes the exact same way for the entirety of their life... these things have an inherent chaos and order to them that the forced structure of regulating your breathing or heart beat purposefully at all times does not.

What can cause a CN paladin to fall? Doing things that are not chaotic.

But accepting and being bound by a code is exactly that... not chaotic

 

[I'm A Banana]

But once you subscribe to a particular code you are no longer living that ethos... you are living by a code which is pre-determined and orderly which in turn means it is non-chaotic.

An ethos is a particular code. You aren't being pre-determined, you are being true to yourself, which can be consistent without being pre-determined.

Think of how a swarm operates: thousands of individuals all making the choice that is best for them in the moment. Still, the whole swarm moves away from the predator.

You can consistently choose to follow the doctrine of free choice.

whether it is freely chosen or not in the beginning, once you choose that idea and consistently and regularly apply it... it has become formal...

You've viewing this as something prescribed. It's not. It's freely adopted. It's equally freely abandoned. It's not a form, custom, or rule, it's something you decide to do over and over again, no more forced upon you than your own choice to keep eating every day. It's the difference between not murdering a guy because it's illegal and not murdering a guy because you just don't want to kill him right now.

Habits and tendencies aren't... patterns if consciously subscribed to and followed formally are. There is a big difference between speaking a language naturally, and speaking a language while making sure the words are pronounced perfectly, and your formal grammar is impeccable at all times. One allows for chaos to naturally come about... or not. The other is actively seeks to minimize chaos and increase order. A heart doesn't beat at the same rate at all times, and no one breathes the exact same way for the entirety of their life... these things have an inherent chaos and order to them that the forced structure of regulating your breathing or heart beat purposefully at all times does not.

But they also have inherent predictability and repetition. Doing the same thing over and over again in a predictable fashion isn't Lawful if you do it because you freely choose to do it.

But accepting and being bound by a code is exactly that... not chaotic

The paradox here is that if it is not chaotic to be bound by a code, then it is also not chaotic to be chaotic, since by being chaotic, you are bound by a code of not being bound by codes.

 

[The Shadow]

The last couple pages of this thread perfectly illustrate what I was saying... that Lawful and Chaotic alignments are ill-defined and only breed arguments about what they "really" mean.

The terms have nothing to do with how real people actually act. They are useful only in a Moorcockian universe in which one necessarily aligns with one group of bastards or the other. Since I find Moorcock's books to be unbearably bleak, I don't see a need to include his ideas in my games.

EDIT: I suppose in a Moorcockian universe you can also align with Balance, but that pretty much has to be self-deception in the long run.

The whole idea of Neutrality as Balance has been especially pernicious in the alignment system, since it is flatly psychologically impossible to desire a balance between good and evil.

 

[The Shadow]

Now, contrariwise, Good and Evil *are* well-defined ... but I still question their usefulness as a codified alignment system, at any rate for mortals.

If I say of my character that he's loyal to a fault, is proud of his family lineage to the point of unreason, has trouble drinking in moderation, and is unfailingly chivalrous to women and anyone of lower social station... isn't that plenty to go on for running him?

What does adding, say, "Neutral Good" to that contribute to my knowledge of the character? I submit that it adds essentially nothing.

Likewise if I say of orcs that they have a ruthless tribal society in which the strong prey upon the weak and mercy is seen as contemptible weakness ... what's added by calling them Chaotic Evil?

Please note that I'm not agitating against, say, having slaadi or the plane of Limbo in the game. I'm just saying, describe them and don't bother with what pigeonhole AD&D would have slotted them in.

 

[The Shadow]

Apologies for posting three times in a row, but I just realized I forgot to reply to some people.

"Paladins" was a proto-prestige class, and probably didn't have any business becoming a core class in 3e but was grandfathered in, even if the Assassin didn't make the core class cut.

There's a lot of truth to this; maybe the Paladin *should* have been a prestige class. (Though honestly, it always had more traction than the Assassin did, at least in my experience.)

But there's something to the idea of a 1st level paladin which does appeal, I can't deny it.

That's interesting. I'd've never said that the lawful/chaotic divide was /unclear/. If anything, I think the problem with the standard nine-point alignment system is that it is /too/ clear. "Moorcockian primordial powers, degrees of societal organization, level of commitment to a society's laws, level of commitment to a personal code, predictability or lack thereof of personal habits..." commitment to an alignment means /all/ of those things, and that's the problem. There's no sense of scale.

I think that you're correct about the lack of a sense of scale, but I see that as the least of it.

The list of things I reeled off isn't even coherent with itself. Being devoted to a society's laws and being devoted to a personal code are practically orthogonal to each other.

The classic version of this dilemma is, "Is a paladin required to follow an unjust law?" Experience with gamers for over 30 years, and with Internet arguments for around 20, convince me that there simply is no universal answer to this question. It all depends on what aspect of 'Lawful' you choose to emphasize over the others, and how important you see it for a paladin to be 'Lawful' as opposed to 'Good'.

And the result is a complete mass of confusion. If you hold that a paladin, being Lawful, must follow the law, you reach a point where he returns runaway slaves to their masters to be tortured to death because the law says so. If you hold that his personal code outweighs the written law, many people will flatly call that Chaotic. Others will not.

The only way to cut the Gordian knot that I can see is that the terms mean allegiance to one set of supernatural beings over another. And that doesn't really interest me for my campaigns. And in any case, I ask, why should a paladin hold allegiance to Law as opposed to the will of his own deity (or whatever he follows)?

As long as I'm on the subject of alignment absurdities, let me just mention completionism. Every alignment needs its own plane for some reason, and each plane needs its unique set of denizens. So we end up with a whole set of eladrins (to name just one example) that don't really add much of anything to the universe. I like the distinction between demons and devils, because it drives conflict and adds some variety. Archons and eladrins, not so much.

Ever since I was an 11 year old kid reading the AD&D books for the first time, I've wondered, "Wouldn't it make much more sense for each pantheon to have its own plane, rather than jamming diverse beings together in the name of alignment?"

(Then there's the crowning absurdity of the slaadi, who are supposedly the essence of Chaos... yet they all take the form of humanoid toads, and fall into rigidly color-coded castes. Oh, and they're Neutral between Good and Evil, but violently implant eggs in sapient beings to forcibly turn them into others of their own kind. Which isn't Evil, honest!)

(I mean really, if you saw everything about the original slaadi statblocks except their alignment, would you have chosen 'Chaotic Neutral' for them? I'd have thought that 'Lawful Evil' would have come nearer the mark, but what do I know? This is why I say don't bother with alignment. Describe your beastie and how it acts, and let the chips fall where they may.)

(P.S. If you think this contradicts what I said above about not agitating against the slaadi, you haven't understood me. I'm not against the slaadi - they're pretty cool monsters. I'm against pretending they're something called 'Chaotic Neutral'.)

EDIT: Forgot one!

Will they? What kind of true code would a chaotic good/neutral/evil paladin even follow? Better yet why would a chaotic character ever be bound by a code, isn't that a lawful behavior? And if he or she wouldn't, why can a chaotic character be a paladin (outside of the "because we dropped alignment restrictions" reason)?

You're not taking my point. I'm advocating getting rid of alignment entirely, at least for mortals. On this view, there are no 'chaotic characters' any more, there's just characters.

Not to say there won't be characters who might act 'chaotically', and you're right, they probably wouldn't be interested in the Cavalier class, or whatever it ends up being called. But in the end, there's just the code; if it isn't followed, you're in peril of losing your powers.

Stop worrying about whether or not a person or an action is 'lawful' or 'chaotic'. Just describe a person, and describe a code, and then decide if that person would be interested in that code. Or, if you prefer, listen to your GM's description of a code, and then describe a person who would, in point of fact, be interested in that code.