Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Madmage" data-source="post: 6113167" data-attributes="member: 6693380">Self-sacrificing for the greater whole does suggest less chaotic and more lawful or at least neutral behaviour by the explanation of the rules. Can a chaotic character be generous? Of course! But I would see it as they would do so once their needs (as they see it) are met. Say the government posts a bounty on a nefarious bandit. The chaotic good character would risk their life to try to bring the culprit to justice but would expect to be compensated to some extent for the deed if at least to cover their expenses. The lawful Good Paladin would do it without expectation of any reward except the spiritual reward of duty and working for the common good of society. The chaotic good character would see it as a choice rather than an obligation or duty. While both might be making a choice (the LG is making a choice between duty/obligation vs shirking those responsibilities and the CG is to do what is right vs the risks of doing so), there is a nuanced difference. I always found the concept of a neutral paladin to be silly. I pledge  myself to the ideal of ... staying on the fence. It's not very  evocative. Plus, I always found the druid in their pursuit of the natural balance to  kind of play that role in the first place. I'd also suggest that politics also took place in conflicts between Church and State. A Church could become intolerant of those of other faiths as one of their implied goals is to promote their faith above others within their spheres of influence and to expand into new areas. If the intended purpose is to turn the Paladin from the paragon of LG to something like a divine Crusader then certainly that is an exercise that could be done. The previous incarnations of D&D made Paladins out as paragons of what it was to be LG and had their powers derive from LG sources (a philosophy or deity). Without going into details of your campaigns, that is a function of circumstance. A paladin in a campaign set entirely in the Abyss would be very different than one set in something based on the Arthurian legend. The LG Paladin in the former case would be very much opposed to the status quo vs the latter because of the nature of the campaign. One must also weigh doing vs trying. If the LG Paladin is never placed in a situation where they can promote lawful or orderly behaviour or are involved in a conflict of chaos vs law, then how can such a character be at fault for not doing more? That's not the scope of the campaign. I'm currently in a 2E Greyhawk campaign paying a Paladin of the Shield Lands, devoted to Heironeous circa From the Ashes boxed set. My character liberated an island in the Nyr Div that was under the influence of a cambion in the service of Iuz the Evil. The island had formerly sworn fealty to Furyondy (one of the "good guy" kingdoms of the setting) but had been lost to Iuz's forces. The cambion was oppressing his people by forcing many of them into slavery and tormenting them. The "law" of the land, such as they were, was of Might makes Right. The cambion was the strongest one there and his goons imposed their strength upon the locals for self-serving ends. My character along with the rest of the group put an end to that (eventually). Does that make the character act in chaotic way? I'd say it was rather a lawful act because following the liberation my character restored the feudal hierarchy and rules over the native peasants as a benevolent baron concerned with their well-being and dignity. They still have certain obligations towards my character as part of the feudal contract but the people are content with that and happy when compared to their previous overlord. The differences between the gods is that of perception and what values they place above others. I agree entirely it would certainly help to have the gods that do sponsor Paladin (or holy warriors of some kind) have certain guidelines defined and that is a matter of setting. If the idea of D&D Next is to present the core rules as divorced from setting, then one has to present a cohesive structure of what is the "generic" or "paragon" paladin. Again, the classes were first written with inspired examples from myth, legend and fantasy writings. Legolas, Aragorn, Robin Hood for the ranger, Arthur and his Knights for the Paladins. As of right now, the designers wish for the Paladin to be a knight of some kind (like in several previous editions). Which implies a character that is part of a formal hierarchy (implying lawful) behaviour. If their desired intention is to make the class warriors devoted to a faith or cause that can take different alignments into question, then the class has to be made more malleable to fit that. Like the examples you provided, the holy warrior of X would be different than Y if both deities portfolios and domains where at wildly different places within the alignment spectrum. A paladin of Corellon might be more of a woodsman type vs the Paladin of Moradin that might be better suited to underground or mountainous setting.</blockquote>

Verification