chaotic paladin!?

[Draig]

Ok so one of my players wants to play a paladin, the catch? He wants to be a variant CHAOTIC paladin. Now idk about all of you but I believe a key characteristic OF a paladin is that he is lawful.

[Amnestic]

"Paladin of Freedom" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm). If you don't want him to play a Chaotic Paladin, and you're the DM, simply tell him "No, it doesn't fit in my setting."

[Draig]

I did. And that ensued an 8 hour argument on why paladins being lawful is dumb. So let me ask why do u believe a paladin should or shouldn't be lawful?

[Innis Cabal]

No, I don't think a holy warrior needs to be Lawful if the religion they are fighting for is say...Discordianism for example.

[Serpentine]

A holy warrior fighting tirelessly for freedom, justice, personal choice and goodness, striving against tyranny and oppression in whatever form it takes.

...sounds like a Chaotic Good Paladin to me.

[TroubleBrewing]

A Paladin is just a champion of one cause or another. Hence, paladin of freedom, paladin of tyranny, or paladin of slaughter.

Law has nothing to do with it. Neither does Good, for that matter.

[Serpentine]

I'd still like to see a good, playable Paladin of Balance (TN)...

[Amnestic]

I'd still like to see a good, playable Paladin of Balance (TN)...

Aren't those called "Druids"? :P

Should Paladins require Lawfulness? In my eyes, no. Sometimes I think they should bend their 'code' in order to better serve Good - a concept I think is more important to a Paladin than Law. The standard Paladin (i.e. not a variant) should lean towards Law, but shouldn't require it.

That's all my view of it of course. People will of course disagree, but hey-ho.

[Draig]

See in the description of a paladin It states that the willingness to uphold the law is one of their 3 main weapons. I've always associated that a paladin gains what he/she does BECAUSE of that restriction to alignment. Because if not why wouldn't every paladin want to be chaotic?

Basically I started DND with the belief that a paladin was the "Judge Dredd" of the world. Example: "what!? That's stupid!". "Its the law."

[hamishspence]

I'd still like to see a good, playable Paladin of Balance (TN)...

There's one in Dragon Magzine (issues 310 and 313 have variant paladins of all 8 other alignments besides LG.

[MeeposFire]

Because they believe in law?

Because being chaotic can have the same stupid results as being lawful excpet reversed?

Would you be against it if you did not call it a paladin? If it had the same mechanics as a paladin, counted as a paladin for class features and the like (though nothing that requires being lawful of course), but was called "sion of freedom" or the like would you be happy? Of course the character could call himself a paladin because well he can believe what he want and classes by and large are meta game constructs (at least in terms of names).

[Lord.Sorasen]

I don't really understand what you mean. I personally like the idea of a lawful good paladin more than a chaotic good paladin (though I think I would ask if I could tread on Neutral good territory without losing my powers), even if such an option was available to me.

[Killer Angel]

See in the description of a paladin It states that the willingness to uphold the law is one of their 3 main weapons. I've always associated that a paladin gains what he/she does BECAUSE of that restriction to alignment. Because if not why wouldn't every paladin want to be chaotic?


That's the Core paladin. Lawful Good.
See it this way: anyone who's ready to die to defend his principles, and that won't negotiate on 'em, is acting as a paladin.
Give to him the relative powers, and you'll have Paladin of freedom, and so on.

[Koury]

Would you allow a Cleric of Olidammara? If so, why not a Paladin?

I believe you're getting awful hung up on labels.

[ILM]

Basically I started DND with the belief that a paladin was the "Judge Dredd" of the world. Example: "what!? That's stupid!". "Its the law."
In which case the first time a paladin encounters anything more complex than a Lich burning down a town populated only by innocent celestial kittens, he falls. Cause sometimes, there's just no way to be both good and in strict accordance with the law.

E.g. You catch a thief. The penalty is jail. He was stealing to support his family. Put him in jail, his children starve. Don't, and you're failing to uphold the law. Either way, you're screwed. (okay, the obvious solution in this case is just to hand them a bunch of money yourself, but you get the point)

[hamishspence]

Yup- in BoED, it emphasises that paladins are Good first, Lawful second. When confronted by possibly corrupt authority- it's their job to investigate, and if necessary, challenge it.

And even in the PHB, paladins fall for committing Evil acts- not Chaotic acts.

[Hirax]

I've always associated that a paladin

Therein is the issue. You're assuming your assumption is a universal assumption. It isn't. While you associate a paladin with only one thing, it should be very plain by not that not every else does. Hence the existence of those paladin variants. Sit down and read the SRD entry on them and try to make sense of it. Begin trying to associate each type of paladin with popular villains and heroes. Darth Vader is a nice example of a paladin of tyranny (lawful evil), for example. He wanted to bring order, stability, and iron rule of law to the galaxy, and had no compunction about mercilessly crushing anything he perceived to be a threat to the rule of law.

[TroubleBrewing]

I sense another alignment thread coming... So before it arrives, I'll toss my two cents in.

Core Paladins are the LG variety.


See it this way: anyone who's ready to die to defend his principles, and that won't negotiate on 'em, is acting as a paladin.

This. A paladin is a representative of the militant arm of any belief system; in the PHB, the example is Heironeous. There's no reason you couldn't have others.

[hamishspence]

Interestingly, some of the Dragon paladin variants work slightly differently from the Paladin of Freedom, Tyranny, etc.

The CG Dragon paladin, is Chaotic first, Good second (they fall for Lawful acts and radiate an aura of Chaos).
The LE Dragon paladin is Lawful first, Evil second (they fall for Chaotic acts and radiate an aura of Law).

So- even within one alignment (CG, or LE) you can "weight" the two factors differently.

[Innis Cabal]

Aren't those called "Druids"? :P

No. Those would be Paladin's of nature.

[Serpentine]

See in the description of a paladin It states that the willingness to uphold the law is one of their 3 main weapons. I've always associated that a paladin gains what he/she does BECAUSE of that restriction to alignment. Because if not why wouldn't every paladin want to be chaotic?That's the default, core Paladin. If he wanted to play that Paladin as CG and you said no, then fair enough. But if he wanted to play the Paladin of Freedom and you're saying that's stupid because Paladins are always Lawful, well... you're pretty much saying he can't be a Good Rogue because Rogues are assassins and Assassins are Evil. It's an entirely different class - one I, personally, actually quite like the idea of - and can't be held to the same standards or expectations of another class. Houserule/homebrew it out of your gameworld, that's your perogative, but that doesn't mean he's stupid for proposing it.
There's one in Dragon Magzine (issues 310 and 313 have variant paladins of all 8 other alignments besides LG.Does it work?

[MeeposFire]

I would say that we are not saying you must have non-lawful paladins around in your campaign. If it absolutely makes you unhappy in game then you don't have to add them. What we are saying that outside of your personal feelings there is no reason to omit them. They offer more options, they don't upset game balance, offer more flavor (competing knightly orders based on their views of law and chaos), and won't disrupt most worlds outside of the world where it being known that paladins are "always" lawful is somehow important (and even then you can still add them they are just not well known). Also in a utilitarian sense I think the happiness that you can give your player will by far outweigh the minor annoyance you might have and in a selfish sense happy players can easily make for happy DM (at least in this case)!

[Figgin of Chaos]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5686199375_9168f75d2f_b.jpg

That said, I can think of a couple Chaotic Good prestige classes that are very similar to the Paladin: Holy Liberator from the Complete Champion, and Champion of Gwynharwyf from the Book of Exalted Deeds.

[Serpentine]

There is the question of whether the person in the original post meant big-P Paladin or little-p paladin. If it was the latter, then that's a character concept he's after, not a class. You can have a Knight that calls herself a paladin, or Hell a Favoured Soul of Mask could call himself a paladin if he wanted to.
If it's the former, then it really comes down to whether they meant core Paladin, of if they wanted to play a Chaotic variant. If the former, then the OP has RAW on his side, as well as fluff - the core Paladin is designed, mechanically and descriptively to be a champion of Good and Law. If the latter... Well, see above.

[Draig]

See there in lies the problem. I asked for them to keep this whole campaign purely the handbook and dmg only and they continue to bring in outside sources. I've had DM's who abolished deities, magic, and/or races from campaigns because they believed them to be against the setting of the campaign. Is it so wrong that I don't want every pc to try his hand at a "variant" paladin? My party gets caught up with alignments left n right and the last thing I need is another "well I'm chaotic so blasting the town guard in the face was chaotic not evil" my 2 biggest problems with this is that the player asked me to see his point of view while saying my idea of a lawful good core paladin was "stupid" and that I'd have a harder time keeping him in alignment check as chaotic good. If a lawful good paladin breaks a law purposely or commits evil I can justify taking his powers without a debate, however if the chaotic good paladin acts out how am I to justify an evil act without envoking the "its chaotic not evil" debate?

[Serpentine]

I think you have bigger problems than a non-standard class alignment...

[Killer Angel]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5686199375_9168f75d2f_b.jpg


I was more thinking to something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJTcyqiZ44). :smallwink:


See there in lies the problem. I asked for them to keep this whole campaign purely the handbook and dmg only


It is certainly you prerogative to do so.
(edit:) ...but anyway, this is different from your initial position. Your question wasn't about core paladin as written, but was merely about the concept of a non lawful paladin, and that it's largely possible (and recommendable).


If a lawful good paladin breaks a law purposely or commits evil I can justify taking his powers without a debate, however if the chaotic good paladin acts out how am I to justify an evil act without envoking the "its chaotic not evil" debate?

:smallsigh:
Leaving aside that we're FULL of debates on core lawful good paladins breaking laws or going against what the DM perceived as paladin code... I really hope you're not planning some smart situation, to test the paladin's reactions.

[KillianHawkeye]

If someone is required to be Chaotic Good, then it's your job to require them to be both Chaotic AND Good. That puts the kibosh on blasting guards in the face, because face blasting is Evil.

That said, if you told your group that the game would be core only, don't let people keep suggesting non-core material. Everybody has to play by the same restrictions, or it's not fair to the other players.

[Nightblade]

A friend of mine always used the following example. Relative to Humans, Dwarves tend to be more Lawful. Relative to Humans, Elves tend to embrace what we might consider Chaos. Thus, an Elf Paladin would be Lawful from his culture's standpoint - but he might be labelled Chaotic Good by the alignment system.

[FMArthur]

A friend of mine always used the following example. Relative to Humans, Dwarves tend to be more Lawful. Relative to Humans, Elves tend to embrace what we might consider Chaos. Thus, an Elf Paladin would be Lawful from his culture's standpoint - but he might be labelled Chaotic Good by the alignment system.

Did you smack him?

[TroubleBrewing]

Did you smack him?

Hopefully with a book or three.

[Figgin of Chaos]

If it seems like everyone wants to play with non-core materials, you may want to give them some leeway. It's their game too, after all.

[Coidzor]

See in the description of a paladin It states that the willingness to uphold the law is one of their 3 main weapons.

Well, you know, it's a class variant, not the standard Paladin class. So using the write-up description for the standard class to judge the class variants by is just weird.


See there in lies the problem. I asked for them to keep this whole campaign purely the handbook and dmg only and they continue to bring in outside sources.

Have you asked them why they keep doing this and yourself why you want to do that when your players don't want to? Have you considered some form of compromise between PHB-only and anything and everything?


Is it so wrong that I don't want every pc to try his hand at a "variant" paladin? My party gets caught up with alignments left n right

Well, a bit, yeah. You say you don't want them to get caught up with alignments but you're also saying the only way to be a champion of Good is to be a LG party babysitter or a cleric.


I'd have a harder time keeping him in alignment check as chaotic good. If a lawful good paladin breaks a law purposely or commits evil I can justify taking his powers without a debate, however if the chaotic good paladin acts out how am I to justify an evil act without envoking the "its chaotic not evil" debate?

You're coming at this from the wrong angle of DMing for a paladin then. And also seem to be coming from the perspective that the players themselves have to be controlled with the threat of force so that their alignment is always X. :smallconfused:

Seems a bit unhealthy and just adds unnecessary stress.

[Draig]

If it seems like everyone wants to play with non-core materials, you may want to give them some leeway. It's their game too, after all.

The fact with this is that i give leeway, so much in fact that it comes to the point where i have no fun as DM. No Dm likes hearing "Well i do (random splatbook action)" and having to ask "Wait what is (random splat book action)"

But the point of this whole thing IS:
I, as a DND DM and PC, believe that a paladin should be kept within his alignment restrictions or else be subject to losing certain aspects of the class. All the variant does is change a few spells and take all the words LAW and replaces them with CHAOS. Its less of a variant and more of a typo.

So while i understand a PC wants to be a paladin without that restriction, I feel that a paladin only gains aspects such as Divine Health, Divine Grace, Divine Spells, etc. Because he is sworn to uphold the law, defend and fight for good, and adhere to his code of honor.

And THAT is what i am trying to get across and discuss. I am aware there are variants, but while some people will see a variant class as better others will see it as worse.

[HalfDragonCube]

In which case the first time a paladin encounters anything more complex than a Lich burning down a town populated only by innocent celestial kittens, he falls. Cause sometimes, there's just no way to be both good and in strict accordance with the law.

E.g. You catch a thief. The penalty is jail. He was stealing to support his family. Put him in jail, his children starve. Don't, and you're failing to uphold the law. Either way, you're screwed. (okay, the obvious solution in this case is just to hand them a bunch of money yourself, but you get the point)

So the Lawful Good alignment is...


Yup- in BoED, it emphasises that paladins are Good first, Lawful second. When confronted by possibly corrupt authority- it's their job to investigate, and if necessary, challenge it.

And even in the PHB, paladins fall for committing Evil acts- not Chaotic acts.

Safety a close third!

[Dr.Epic]

"Paladin of Freedom" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm). If you don't want him to play a Chaotic Paladin, and you're the DM, simply tell him "No, it doesn't fit in my setting."

Yep. It's also in Unearthed Arcana. Personally, I like Paladins of Slaughter.:smallbiggrin:

[MeeposFire]

Paladins of freedom are just as restrictive as traditional paladins just in the other direction. If he does an evil act he still loses his class powers and doing lawful things puts him in trouble. Do you realize that this paladin will need to support the people rebelling against a government (assuming both sides are equal on the good/evil scale) even if it is inconvenient for the party just like the standard paladin should support the government? You just change which side they are on.

[Tael]

The fact with this is that i give leeway, so much in fact that it comes to the point where i have no fun as DM. No Dm likes hearing "Well i do (random splatbook action)" and having to ask "Wait what is (random splat book action)"

But the point of this whole thing IS:
I, as a DND DM and PC, believe that a paladin should be kept within his alignment restrictions or else be subject to losing certain aspects of the class. All the variant does is change a few spells and take all the words LAW and replaces them with CHAOS. Its less of a variant and more of a typo.


And if the Paladin of Freedom had been the first one printed in the PHB, you'd probably be saying that about the current Paladin.

Well, I actually agree with you for the most part on this. I'd really like to have seen more work put in to making the other alignment Paladins unique or different, instead of just slapping the word "Freedom" on the end.



So while i understand a PC wants to be a paladin without that restriction, I feel that a paladin only gains aspects such as Divine Health, Divine Grace, Divine Spells, etc. Because he is sworn to uphold the law, defend and fight for good, and adhere to his code of honor.


:smallconfused:
Okay, you lost me here.

How are Divine Health, Grace, and Spells remotely lawful instead of chaotic?

I mean, how is the ability to cast divine spells more lawful than chaotic?

[Coidzor]

The fact with this is that i give leeway, so much in fact that it comes to the point where i have no fun as DM. No Dm likes hearing "Well i do (random splatbook action)" and having to ask "Wait what is (random splat book action)"

Read your player's character sheets and have them bring in the books if you're the unfamiliar with what they're capable of? It sounds like you're using "keeping it to core" as an excuse to not be familiar with the wealth of your players' and personal library but you keep giving them special exceptions that you don't know well enough as a DM. :smallconfused:

This really seems to be the root of your issues here. You make them have to argue, wheedle, beg, bribe, or fight you for exceptions from core, so of course he's going to argue with you about getting the variant paladin he wants.


But the point of this whole thing IS:
I, as a DND DM and PC, believe that a paladin should be kept within his alignment restrictions or else be subject to losing certain aspects of the class. All the variant does is change a few spells and take all the words LAW and replaces them with CHAOS. Its less of a variant and more of a typo.

You're the DM, yes, but it's not all about you, your perspective, and what you want in a game, and you've made that even clearer by letting others negotiate with you to change your game world from what you set it out to be.

Plus, y'know, you're no DM if you have no players, so you have to work with them and should be able to as ostensibly they're your friends. So figure out what your issues with your players are and work out compromises to overcome them and the rest should at least more smoothly fall into place.


So while i understand a PC wants to be a paladin without that restriction, I feel that a paladin only gains aspects such as Divine Health, Divine Grace, Divine Spells, etc. Because he is sworn to uphold the law, defend and fight for good, and adhere to his code of honor.

Those class variants exist, so, no those class features are not only acquired in that manner.


And THAT is what i am trying to get across and discuss. I am aware there are variants, but while some people will see a variant class as better others will see it as worse.

There's no better or worse except for the ability to roleplay them with whatever group you're playing with. If your players have such a tendency to randomly kill guards and derail the adventure, what kind of person would willingly play as a LG party babysitter when they know their paladin is going to be deliberately sabotaged by such a group or at least inevitably when one of them gets bored with whatever you're doing and starts slaughtering random townspeople.

[Hirax]

The fact with this is that i give leeway, so much in fact that it comes to the point where i have no fun as DM. No Dm likes hearing "Well i do (random splatbook action)" and having to ask "Wait what is (random splat book action)"

That's a poor example in this case, since the only thing that's changing is alignment. Though what you characterize is an example of players not being courteous imo, I always run through my character with the DM, taking special care to point out anything the might come out of left field, and I appreciate when players do the same for me. I'll gladly sympathize for you here, I hate it as a DM because it catches you flat footed, and I hate it as a player because it slows the game down.


And THAT is what i am trying to get across and discuss. I am aware there are variants, but while some people will see a variant class as better others will see it as worse.

Nobody here has said that you can't just invoke rule zero and say all paladins are LG. Many people are just pointing out that from a player perspective, it sucks being told that your character concept is invalid for any reason, but particularly because of alignment, which many people view to be petty and subjective, as you can tell. Also, I think your use of the words "better" and "worse" are a mistake. They're not better or worse, they're different, like a green apple, and a red apple. If I wanted to play a variant paladin to roleplay that kind of character, and I were shutdown for the reasons you've given, I'd be disconcerted. You're not shutting down some mechanical advantage or splatbook superpower, you're telling them how to roleplay, and nobody likes that. Though, if he wants to play this variant paladin to accomplish some sort of mechanical advantage over a regular paladin, well, that's another story.

[Coidzor]

Though, if he wants to play this variant paladin to accomplish some sort of mechanical advantage over a regular paladin, well, that's another story.

Indeed, though the dragon variants mostly can't supermount at all, so they've actually got some decided disadvantages.

[Callista]

See in the description of a paladin It states that the willingness to uphold the law is one of their 3 main weapons. I've always associated that a paladin gains what he/she does BECAUSE of that restriction to alignment. Because if not why wouldn't every paladin want to be chaotic?I think you may be forgetting that Law isn't "restriction" and chaos isn't "do what I want". The Lawful paladin acting lawfully is also doing what he wants, because what he wants is to behave with honor, discipline, etc.

Chaos is not "Do what I want" or "act randomly". It's individualism and freedom, with a focus on emotion, quick or impulsive actions, and one's personal conscience.

Lawful would say "I do what I know is right."
Chaotic says "I do what I feel is right."

The approach is similar but there are significant differences. Lawful pallys like having a regular code of honor, a list of rules that they believe uphold Good and allow for a peaceful, orderly society. They like being part of a hierarchy; they like knowing where they fit in the world. They probably like predictability and order, and want a rule by law. A constitutional monarchy is probably the ultimate Lawful Good government.

A CG paladin is different... you have someone who probably doesn't have a code of honor, or has a very simple one, likely only a sentence or a phrase in length, which he applies generally. A typical CG code of conduct might be, "Love your neighbor." This is a person who believes in following his heart, and encouraging others to follow their conscience as well. He has a focus on the individual person rather than on society as a whole. He believes in freedom, though not anarchy, because anarchy allows the strongest to destroy the freedoms of those weaker than themselves. He makes decisions by listening to his conscience and his emotions, and is likely to be passionate and impulsive, especially when the innocent are threatened. CG paladins would probably consider a minimalist democracy to be the best possible government.

CG paladins are unlikely to be part of a strict order; rather, they will probably be part of a loose network of CG paladins, helping each other voluntarily, with the primary connections between them being made not of hierarchical ties but simple communication links. Because they are so flexible, they are much more likely to act on their own rather than leading armies, as the LG paladin would. They are more likely to depend on thinking on their feet and having a very adaptable battle strategy. They will generally consider trickery and stealth valid tactics.

CG paladins are very likely to target tyranny of all kinds, especially slavery, mind control, and oppression. You will find them heading civil rights movements and slave rebellions, as well as the usual "protect the weak" thing that any paladin, chaotic or lawful, would do. They are likely to view CE villains with nearly as much disgust as LE villains, because these are people who know and believe in freedom, but have perverted it to hurt others.

CG can definitely make a paladin, for a certain value of "paladin". If you like, I suppose you could re-name it something else, if you believe that "paladin" is intrinsically a lawful concept; but the character type definitely exists.

[Killer Angel]

All the variant does is change a few spells and take all the words LAW and replaces them with CHAOS. Its less of a variant and more of a typo.


It's a Variant, 'cause the standard paladin has ONE huge limit, the LG Alignment.
The fact is: a pal is a sanctified fighter, that fights for a Holy cause, for what he believes is right withous doubts; he's ready to sacrifice himself and to die, defending the principles he dedicated his life to.
The most common type is the LG one (righteous, pure, help the weak, and so on), but you can easily find a paladin for each god, the same as priests, 'cause each Church can have its holy warriors.
We can debate if some ideas are better than others (for example, I like the P. of freedom, but think that the P. of Slaughter is a weaker idea, 'cause it usually lacks the "self-sacrifice" part), but the concept of various kind of paladins, is great.
It's not a variant that redefines a couple powers, it redefines the meaning of life for a paladin.

[Tarmikos]

I think you may be forgetting that Law isn't "restriction" and chaos isn't "do what I want". The Lawful paladin acting lawfully is also doing what he wants, because what he wants is to behave with honor, discipline, etc.

Chaos is not "Do what I want" or "act randomly". It's individualism and freedom, with a focus on emotion, quick or impulsive actions, and one's personal conscience.

Lawful would say "I do what I know is right."
Chaotic says "I do what I feel is right."

CG can definitely make a paladin, for a certain value of "paladin". If you like, I suppose you could re-name it something else, if you believe that "paladin" is intrinsically a lawful concept; but the character type definitely exists.

Very well put, the problem is, speaking from personal experience, the player wanting to play the CG paladin doesn't know alignment. We've tried talking it over with him, to no gain.

Lawful to him is dumb, because it's doing what you're told, with no personal input or thoughts on it, just blind, unquestioning obedience.

Where chaotic is, do what I want, when I want, and smack people up who try to get in the way, but doing so is more than justified. It just gets ugly when alignment is brought in with him. :smallannoyed:

The good and evil axis isn't so bad with him, until you bring in lawful and chaotic, and what he can justify as good, according to his chaotic streak. Personally, I'm waiting for the day when he kicks, literally kicks, the orphaned child out of his path, and into a wall, claiming it got in the way of some CG goal he was following.

[Draig]

For those of you unfamiliar with myself or the group i run, the PC wanting to play the CG paladin is the same PC who, as a Chaotic Good character, Blasted a uniformed peacekeeper in the face because the man asked to question him, and then fought for 3 weeks about how it was not possibly evil.

Alignment Ailment:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183197

[Coidzor]

Yeah, you need to either work out some way he's not going to be disruptive or not play with him anymore more than you need to ban non-LG paladins.

[Callista]

Yeah... if you don't know alignment, you shouldn't be playing paladins. They're all about alignment.

Find another knight-flavored class or prestige class and recommend that.

[Telonius]

My 2cp ...

It doesn't make any sense to me that a god like (for example) Garl Glittergold or Olidammara would very much like a lawful group of holy knights. It also doesn't make much sense that Hieroneous or Moradin would be able to grant some abilities to their followers that Garl or Oli wouldn't be able to do. So my houserule is this:

Paladins must take the alignment of the deity or cause they serve. (DM's call to determine a cause's alignment). The Paladin must act as a shining example of that deity's philosophy, or that cause's goal. They get their spells and powers direct from the deity, and are that god's "holy warriors." (I also houserule to prevent Clericzilla, but that's another story).


... just saw Draig's latest post. Yeah. That guy's got a terminal case of "Chaotic Stupid."

[Fisticuffs]

Yeah. That guy's got a terminal case of "Chaotic Stupid."

This. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid)
Don't blame the pally or the alignment, try talking to your player about what you perceive as being in line with Chaotic Good, if it's really as bad as him not even being willing to then it sounds like he'd be a problem not matter what class he plays. You're really the last call on this put I'd recommend working with him to get to where both of you can be happy with it. Otherwise you might just want to boot him if he refuses to even be reasonable. Back to the pallys, as long as it's a corner alignment I see no reason why there'd be any problem with alignment as they're each very extreme in their ways.

[Callista]

I'd ban him from playing alignment-restricted classes. That's not as restrictive as it seems; I also remove alignment restrictions from several of the classes--barbarians, bards, monks relaxed to just non-chaotic... Paladins, though, are supposed to be exemplars of their alignments, and if you're not that good at understanding and using alignments, then I would really not recommend paladins, clerics, Exalted or Vile characters, or others with similarly strict limits.

Figure out what kind of mechanical effect he wants and recommend a non-alignment-based class related to that. Maybe come back here and poll the forums on what kind of a class would best do what your player wants, without imposing an alignment restriction.

Regarding chaotic gods and paladins: In a few cases, I can actually see a CG god allowing LG paladins. Corellon Larethian does, for example.
--LG paladins are focused on Good rather than Law; if necessary, they will choose Good at the expense of Law.
--The Good-focused CG deities tend to have a chaotic bent that has more to do with freedom, conscience, and the individual person than anything else; so the things they oppose the most are Lawful Evil things that LG paladins would also hate.
--CG gods would not have that much of a problem with worshipers who set a lawful (orderly, disciplined) lifestyle for themselves, and used Law to reinforce Good rather than for its own sake, because CG believes in freedom of choice--including the freedom to have different, non-evil values.

I could see a few CG deities basically saying, "Okay, well, you're pretty straitlaced and uptight; but your heart's in the right place, and I have to admit your disciplined outlook makes you pretty persistent. We both care about protecting the innocent and defeating tyranny. If you can deal with my unwillingness to set a strict code of behavior for you, I can deal with your wanting to codify the rules for everything. Let's work together."

If both are Good-focused, CG and LG can work together very well... It also leads to some interesting conflicts--they will both want to do good, but will differ as to the best methods for accomplishing it.

...and now I'm philosophizing again. I'm rather fond of D&D deities and religions, can you tell? :)