Chaotic Good Paladins?

[King of Casuals]

So I'm currently DMing a game that is based heavily off of the world of Greyhawk (kept a lot of names and places, but changed pretty much everything else to fit me and my group's tastes.) and I ran into a slight problem. You see, one of the main nearby kingdoms is called Furyondy. The government is a constitutional monarchy, with the government and the people of Furyondy mostly chaotic good due to the widespread belief that excessive force of law invites tyranny. Their paladins are no different, and as such are aligned as chaotic good (Keep in mind that this is not my idea, it was part of the setting, I just endorse it because I don't like alignment restrictions on classes). So I basically had the idea of having the paladins be super patriotic dudes who work outside the law to support their country.

The problem with this though, is that some of my players are traditionalists who DO like alignment restrictions on classes, and I thought that it would be weird for me, a big RPG liberal, to create a new paladin's code that might not make sense.

So I thought "Hey! Why not let the playground do it for me? "

So following the interpretation that a paladin is a paragon of an alignment, and not just a lawful good flavored stick in the mud, and using the context that I just gave you, how would you rewrite the paladin's code to be more fitting for a paladin of Furyondy?

[Geddy2112]

"Never let rules, tradition, or even honor stand in the way of doing good". CG paladins are still big G little C(vs little l big G) and still only fall for an evil act, not a law/chaos act.

So basically the same thing, just that there is no law, tradition, or any other ordered basis to do good.

[Killer Angel]

"The road to hell, is often paved with irreprehensible, lawful behavior"

[Mr.Moron]

Having any code would not make them a paragon of chaos, as it prescribes behavior rather than leaving them entirely to their personal judgement and desires at the time. A paragon of chaos tolerates no codes, no rules, and no instruction beyond what they must to get along.Things start with "Just 'Cause" and end with "It's what I wanted to do". Obviously, in the case of a paragon of chaotic GOOD those sentences might be finished as "Just 'Cause I wanted to help him" and "It's what I wanted to do because I care about other people". However none of that can really translate to some larger structure or tradition handing down what's right and wrong, that's for the individual and the individual alone to decide.

The closest thing to a "Code" you could get without kind of violating the concept is

"The forces of good/gods are watching you those shiny powers are going to go away if you start being a ****"

[Red Fel]

So following the interpretation that a paladin is a paragon of an alignment, and not just a lawful good flavored stick in the mud, and using the context that I just gave you, how would you rewrite the paladin's code to be more fitting for a paladin of Furyondy?

Well, let's start with a sample Paladin code. I'm going to use the 3.5 one, because it's easily accessible.

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

First note, 3.5 already has a Code of Conduct for a CG Paladin, the Paladin of Freedom:

Code of Conduct

A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.

Associates

While he may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin of freedom will never knowingly associate with evil characters (except on some sort of undercover mission), nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of freedom may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic good.

That's actually a pretty decent CG Paladin Code, except for one thing - the concept of a Code of Conduct seems antithetical to a Chaotic character. Instead of a universal Code of Conduct, I would instead promote "guidelines" (e.g. do no Evil, promote Good), and couple them with a list of personal principles, unique to each Paladin. For example, one Paladin, motivated by a hatred for slavery, might have a "code" that includes "Suffer none to be treated as property," while another who hates those who enforce debts might include "Let none have their freedom infringed by usurious creditors." Make it personal. That's how CG works, isn't it?

[Honest Tiefling]

Here's the thing that bugs me about arguments against other alignments of paladins: They're probably effective. If they are effective, why HASN'T anyone ripped them off? Especially Lawful Evil, given their penchant for corruption of lawful institutions? What the heck is wrong with Chaos and Evil if in a few hundred years they haven't figured out how to make their own? If they aren't effective enough to bother with, then why is Lawful Good so stupid in making more of them?

[Red Fel]

Here's the thing that bugs me about arguments against other alignments of paladins: They're probably effective. If they are effective, why HASN'T anyone ripped them off? Especially Lawful Evil, given their penchant for corruption of lawful institutions? What the heck is wrong with Chaos and Evil if in a few hundred years they haven't figured out how to make their own? If they aren't effective enough to bother with, then why is Lawful Good so stupid in making more of them?

Oh, Lawful Evil makes our own. We just make them with better mechanics, better options, better everything, really. Moreover, we draw them from classes which aren't hindered by an alignment prerequisite, ensuring that just about anybody can become deliciously corrupt.

We call them Wizards.

[Honest Tiefling]

Oh, Lawful Evil makes our own. We just make them with better mechanics, better options, better everything, really. Moreover, we draw them from classes which aren't hindered by an alignment prerequisite, ensuring that just about anybody can become deliciously corrupt.

We call them Wizards.

This goes back to 'Good is Stupid, because good makes paladins instead of Clerics/Wizards' problem. Because the planes of evil shudder in thought at the idea of a freaking MOUNT instead of a guy who can rip open a portal to let in an army of their most hated enemies right in their living room.

[Douche]

Having any code would not make them a paragon of chaos, as it prescribes behavior rather than leaving them entirely to their personal judgement and desires at the time. A paragon of chaos tolerates no codes, no rules, and no instruction beyond what they must to get along.Things start with "Just 'Cause" and end with "It's what I wanted to do". Obviously, in the case of a paragon of chaotic GOOD those sentences might be finished as "Just 'Cause I wanted to help him" and "It's what I wanted to do because I care about other people". However none of that can really translate to some larger structure or tradition handing down what's right and wrong, that's for the individual and the individual alone to decide.

The closest thing to a "Code" you could get without kind of violating the concept is

"The forces of good/gods are watching you those shiny powers are going to go away if you start being a ****"

I disagree, just because they are chaotic doesn't mean they can't have a code.

If you ask me, a chaotic good paladin would value personal freedom, not abiding by laws that might be outdated or nonsensical. In other words, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, he would support it. For instance, he'd probably support individual rights, like equality and stuff. Meanwhile, he would be opposed to, say, a church or cult that's forcing their beliefs on other people.

I realize that's not really a concise "code" but that does enforce the idea that he is good, but also chaotic in the sense that he doesn't believe any one way to live should apply to everyone.

[Flickerdart]

The paladin code is vague enough that it's not actually all that Lawful to have it (what the code asks you to do is another story).

[Petrocorus]

The code of the Paladin of Freedom can be pretty simple:

1. Serve the greater good.
2. Protect the innocents.
3. Uphold freedom
4. Don't give a flying duck about laws and rules.

[wumpus]

Are you sticking to the "heroic knight" base of the paladin class? I would guess that building a new class [for a player] would probably need [re]balancing and that would greatly depend on the player to keep the screaming to a minimum (assuming you needed to nerf it a bit). In the dawn of time (i.e. back in 1e) I thought that a CG paladin should be based on a duelist, with possibly assassin powers. A LE type would be a warlord (the martial class would be ideal), and the CE type would be a berserker (frenzied berserker in 3e). Of these, the CG's class features haven't seemed to have made the cut.

Of course you could always use "dashing swordsman". http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dashing_Swordsman *
Seriously, can you really see a CG idealization as some sort of "free templar"? NO! a dashing swordsman is much closer to the CG ideal (even if Julio Scoundrél is CN). Quips can be optional (or beneath notice) depending on the gaming atmosphere.

* I was going to suggest the DDO "swashbuckler" (a bard enhancement), but DDO's power creep pretty much makes it pointless without severe nerfing all around.

[goto124]

Dnd 5e Oath of Ancients.

Yay, I did it!

My full sig has a quote about how Lawful and Chaotic are different. It's pretty similar to what Douche has said - it's more of collectvism vs individualism.

[ghanjrho]

A chaotic (or even Chaotic) character can still have a code, even a Code. All that matters is that it be internally driven. A person can follow any set of rules they want to, provided that they follow those rules of their own will and own choice. Also, a Chaotic Code is probably far more concerned with the spirit of its tenets and the motivations of its adherents than the letter and the strict actions undertaken.

[8BitNinja]

Oh, Lawful Evil makes our own. We just make them with better mechanics, better options, better everything, really. Moreover, we draw them from classes which aren't hindered by an alignment prerequisite, ensuring that just about anybody can become deliciously corrupt.

We call them Wizards.

What about Blackguards

[Red Fel]

What about Blackguards

Ah hahahahahahahaha... No.

Oh, that was precious. Let me see that again.

What about Blackguards

Ah hahahahaha... Still no.

Blackguard takes a poorly designed class and manages to make it even worse, in the name of being "oooooooooh Evil." I mean, poison use? Sneak attack? Oh, that's just adorable.

The class isn't even Lawful. It's any Evil. I mean, come on. We have standards.

[Flickerdart]

Blackguard is good for exactly one thing - having full BAB and 4th level spells by level 7. Then you go into Nar Demonbinder and sic fiends on all your problems while you're taking levels in some cool gish PrC.

[Petrocorus]

Blackguard is good for exactly one thing - having full BAB and 4th level spells by level 7. Then you go into Nar Demonbinder and sic fiends on all your problems while you're taking levels in some cool gish PrC.

Wouldn't it be better to start with Paladin of Slaughter for that?

[Suichimo]

Maybe I missed it, but why wouldn't the Paladin of Freedom work? Also, I agree that Paladins only being LG sucks. Apparently other alignments aren't allowed to have champions.

[hifidelity2]

The people I generally play with have always allowed Paladins for any alignment

We have always held that Paladins are Holy Warriors of the Church – note that you may think that religion X is Evil and so Unholy but that’s your take on it.

A LG Paladin will follow the laws of his faith and where they are different from the local secular laws he will follow his faiths laws



In the current campaign I’m playing in we have a CG Paladin and a LE Paladin working together (on direct instructions from the relative Deities). They don’t like it but they are doing it (lots of nice options for roleplaying the tension between them and their different “methodologies”)

[goto124]

Wouldn't it be better to start with Paladin of Slaughter for that?

Isn't every adventurer a Paladin of Slaughter?

note that you may think that religion X is Evil and so Unholy but that’s your take on it.

Sometimes I think of it as anti-holy, if that makes any sense.

[Flickerdart]

Wouldn't it be better to start with Paladin of Slaughter for that?

Does Paladin of Slaughter get SMIV by 7?

[LudicSavant]

If this is 3.5e, then the best way to do Paladins of any alignment in my experience is to stop using the Paladin class and learn how to play Clericadins.

They've got more martial power than the Paladin class and cooler paladinly flavor, too. And you can make them for any alignment, and they still have the whole Code of Conduct thing going (their code is just dependent on their deity/philosophy, instead of a single prewritten code). Every 5e code, for instance, could hypothetically be a 3.5e Cleric's code. Or, of course, any code you make up yourself.

Just grab a Cleric, get spells like Blade of Blood, Footsteps of the Divine, and Surge of Fortune that turn you into an evil-smiting melee monster. Maybe Divine Metamagic: Quicken Spell (Persistent is going overboard for most games). You can emphasize your martial prowess further with Prestige Classes like Ruby Knight Vindicator (which gives you Tome of Battle maneuvers) or Ordained Champion (The coolest feature of which is that it lets you custom-design smite effects with its Channel Spell ability). There's also Prestige Paladin, I guess, but by the time you get it it seriously isn't offering any fluffy paladinly features you don't already have.

[Killer Angel]

Wouldn't it be better to start with Paladin of Slaughter for that?

I think it's better to pretend Paladin of Slaughter doesn't exist as concept.

[Red Fel]

I think it's better to pretend Paladin of Slaughter doesn't exist as concept.

Pretend the what doesn't exist? I'm sure I've never heard of it.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Just reading through the wiki page for Furyondy has brought up a few questions.

1) The top 3 deities that are worshiped in Furyondy are Heironeous, Rao and St. Cuthbert. Two LG deities plus one LN, with the forth most popular being a LG demigod paladin or sorts (Mayaheine). So the population being mostly chaotic but worshiping lawful deities seems a bit off.

2) The country is ruled by a king, who has his power curved slightly by a council of nobles. This means that there is still some sort of official hierarchy, which doesn't seem very chaotic.

3) They boast an impressive army, which admittedly is bolstered by mercs and adventurers, but that still requires regimentation that does not befit a chaotic nation. Actually, the term "nation", doesn't imply chaos either. Nations have structure, order and other synonyms of lawful.

Now, I understand you've changed a few things in the setting and I get that "good" aspects of the kingdom, but what specifically about Furyondy screams "chaotic"?

I'll admit I don't have the book for the setting, so if there's a passage that specifically states the population is mostly CG, ignore everything I've just said. But simply having a constitutional monarchy != chaotic. Democracy != chaotic. Chaotic would be a push for democracy/freedom in a land ruled by monarchy. Chaotic would be rebellion against the norm. Once the constitutional monarchy becomes the law, it ceases to be chaotic, unless the new government abuses it's power and people rise up to challenge the government. But then it goes back to rebelling against the norm. Not believing in excessive use of law, to me, seems neutral, because it implies that the people also recognize the importance of laws as well.

To sum up my point. Do you really need paladins to be chaotic good? Especially when (at least to me), the country itself doesn't seem to be all that chaotic.

[King of Casuals]

Just reading through the wiki page for Furyondy has brought up a few questions.

1) The top 3 deities that are worshiped in Furyondy are Heironeous, Rao and St. Cuthbert. Two LG deities plus one LN, with the forth most popular being a LG demigod paladin or sorts (Mayaheine). So the population being mostly chaotic but worshiping lawful deities seems a bit off.

2) The country is ruled by a king, who has his power curved slightly by a council of nobles. This means that there is still some sort of official hierarchy, which doesn't seem very chaotic.

3) They boast an impressive army, which admittedly is bolstered by mercs and adventurers, but that still requires regimentation that does not befit a chaotic nation. Actually, the term "nation", doesn't imply chaos either. Nations have structure, order and other synonyms of lawful.

Now, I understand you've changed a few things in the setting and I get that "good" aspects of the kingdom, but what specifically about Furyondy screams "chaotic"?

I'll admit I don't have the book for the setting, so if there's a passage that specifically states the population is mostly CG, ignore everything I've just said. But simply having a constitutional monarchy != chaotic. Democracy != chaotic. Chaotic would be a push for democracy/freedom in a land ruled by monarchy. Chaotic would be rebellion against the norm. Once the constitutional monarchy becomes the law, it ceases to be chaotic, unless the new government abuses it's power and people rise up to challenge the government. But then it goes back to rebelling against the norm. Not believing in excessive use of law, to me, seems neutral, because it implies that the people also recognize the importance of laws as well.

To sum up my point. Do you really need paladins to be chaotic good? Especially when (at least to me), the country itself doesn't seem to be all that chaotic.

Like I said, I'm really only keeping the names, not what the country is in the Greyhawk Canon.

My main reason for making Furyondy CG is while we were playing (I'm currently doing Temple of Elemental Evil translated into Pathfinder) the PCs rescued a prince/paladin lord of Furyondy who wielded an artifact blade called Fragarach, which only works properly for a chaotic good character. The blade was so chaotic that any lawful character who wielded it took damage, so it made sense that the paladin was chaotic good. I kept this in mind when I was world-building (because my group likes to do that) and I decided to make Furyondy CG.

[TheFamilarRaven]

Like I said, I'm really only keeping the names, not what the country is in the Greyhawk Canon.

My main reason for making Furyondy CG is while we were playing (I'm currently doing Temple of Elemental Evil translated into Pathfinder) the PCs rescued a prince/paladin lord of Furyondy who wielded an artifact blade called Fragarach, which only works properly for a chaotic good character. The blade was so chaotic that any lawful character who wielded it took damage, so it made sense that the paladin was chaotic good. I kept this in mind when I was world-building (because my group likes to do that) and I decided to make Furyondy CG.

Oh, well that's fine. Having a CG ruler of a nations that's not necessarily CG is absolutely fine. (See Lord Shojo from OOTS). Well in this case he's an heir but still.

At this point, I'd normally ask why you had to declare the entire nation CG just because the prince used a sword of super CG. But that's not the point.

It seems there's no compromise between you and your players. You want CG paladins, they don't like that. At this point I'd simply recommend the rule of fun.

If a good portion of your players are vehemently opposed to CG paladins, then don't do them. It's not they can't be done, but the headache involved with arguing to your players won't be worth keeping them. You would be arguing subjective points, which unlike objective points, can't really have convincing supporting arguments.

Better to just re-fluff the sword, or stop calling the prince a paladin. Rebuild him as a crusader or something.

[wumpus]

Sounds like you have even less problems then I thought.

If you get to make "CG paladin" a NPC class you don't have to make a playable balance class. If your party isn't evil (and thus not fighting paladins), you don't even need stats for your CG paladins.
I'd go so far as to suggest not stating them up at all and keep them away from fighting (at least in front of your characters). They have the potential for DMPC problems written all over them, but sound cool enough if they can keep off stage and just flavor your kingdom.

[ReGaXV]

Well, let's start with a sample Paladin code. I'm going to use the 3.5 one, because it's easily accessible.


First note, 3.5 already has a Code of Conduct for a CG Paladin, the :


That's actually a pretty decent CG Paladin Code, except for one thing - the concept of a Code of Conduct seems antithetical to a Chaotic character. Instead of a universal Code of Conduct, I would instead promote "guidelines" (e.g. do no Evil, promote Good), and couple them with a list of personal principles, unique to each Paladin. For example, one Paladin, motivated by a hatred for slavery, might have a "code" that includes "Suffer none to be treated as property," while another who hates those who enforce debts might include "Let none have their freedom infringed by usurious creditors." Make it personal. That's how CG works, isn't it?

I agree that 3.5 code is a good start, but I'd avoid to make it personal: the Whole thing about a code is about to be a complex of rules the Paladin must respect, even when he would choose otherwise. If I make my rules, I will Always follow it. This obviously makes clear a chaotic Paladin cannot be utterly chaotic, since they must respect their divinity's rules. But this is true for chaotic clerics too, who can't justify disobedience with their alignment. The point is, there are a lot of ways to be chaotic: a believer who dedicate their life to promote freedom and refuse any authority except for their Chaos divinity is still a truly chaotic person, even if in a different way than the extreme chaotic one. Obviouslyl, a chaotic divinity could be less rigorous about their code application than a lawful one.

Instead, I'd add another comma to Paladin of freedom's code, because I don't want this class be easier to play than the original: instead of saying:"act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)", my code would say:"never accept an imposed order". In this way, if, e.g., the paladin is stuck against a way more powerful enemy, who they cannot defy by their own strenght, and this enemy blackmails them, they can't accept, but they can try to fool it (while LG Paladin couldn't lie, but could temporarily obey).