Nobody fits a single alignment one hundred percent, that's just silly thinking.  That makes for entirely unrealistic people.  Alignments are about balance, about which actions you take most often.  They aren't strict guidelines, that would be absurd and would make creating an even vaguely realistic character impossible.  You take alignment too seriously, and I would hate playing in a game you run, it sounds suffocating and impossible to make a complex and nuanced character in.

Lawful would be most often acts makes their decisions by drawing on an outside source, while chaotic would be, most often makes their decisions by listening to their personal internal compass.

Now yes, codes do tend more towards lawful characters for this reason.  That said, there can be codes that encourage following your moral compass and helping to encourage others to follow theirs, and defend people's right to do so.  In fact such a code could also encourage actively fighting those who seek to impose their own beliefs on others.

The difference between the two codes is one encourages following the defined beliefs of others, be it set down in a book, or following leaders and orders and laws.  While the other encourages following your own internal compass.  Both can still be codes though.

The funny thing is though, alignment is silly anyway, because if you're in any way an intellectual you can see how law and chaos taken to their extremes can and will overlap and fold in on each other.  At least philosophically.  Law and chaos are the most poorly defined aspects of alignment.

Edit, thought I accidentally deleted this post is why the one below exists.  I prefer the one below anyway.

Your actions are dictated by who you are, and if you are in any way a real human being and not an automoton, you will act at times in ways that fall into every single box on the alignment spectrum.  This is why alignment is defined by the balance of your overall actions instead of defining your actions for you.  No one fits one hundred percent in any alignment box, everyone is an individual.  

Alignment is which box you most fit in.  I would hate playing a character in your game if you're that strict on alignment defining your actions, would be annoying having the dm tell me how my character acts.  I mean really, by your definition if say someone legally beat their wife in a culture that allowed it, and my paladin who grew up in an abusive home got angry and ended up interfering in a moment of weakness, despite it fitting their past and them typically being in control and acting in a lawful fashion, would suddenly need to be neutral or chaotic good, because how dare they be an individual that occasionally if rarely lets their emotions get the best of them.

I mean on one hand you say, who you are and what you do is defined by your past, but in the other breath say it's defined by your alignment, well it can't be both, because no with a real past or individuality will in all circumstances act in a way that fits into any alignment one hundred percent of the time.

This is why alignment is defined by overall most common actions and choices.

But who you are is dictated by your environment and how you were raised. But again i dont want to argue with you.

As for alignment... Again i think the problem is from the fact that you guys take it too literally. Alignment is not straight forward.

Take the alignment test on the wizard website. If you dont understand how alignment works after that then i believe nothing will work for you.

Yes and if to take any alignment test you will answer questions, every question gives points that rank your action, you will answer many question that will rank you in each alignment, in the end they will all be totaled up, and whichever alignment you have the MOST answers in will have.  You're the one taking it too literally, you're the one saying a paladin must be lawful, even if they followed a code but tested out with more overall towards a non lawful alignment.  There's no way you ever took an alignment test, and scored one hundred percent only lawful good or any other alignment choices.  No one ONLY acts in a way that fits into one alignment box, ever.   It's not like, once the test determines your alignment, you suddenly are forced to uncheck every choice you made that didn't fit that alignment until you fit it one hundred percent.

Let me make it simple and less about alignment itself and more on the non lawful Paladin.  Imagine you have an alignment test, (the more questions with the more scenarios the more accurate such a test) imagine this test is the most accurate of accurate tests, it is a million questions long, so as to cover as complete a human being as possible.  Some questions have more worth and strength, so are worth more points than others.  Are you telling me that, following a Paladin code, of which there can be many, is so overwhelming, that, no matter how they answer the other million questions outside the many possible Paladin code questions (Which I still argue varieties of could push you away from lawful) you will test out as lawful every single time?  That there is no possibility of combined life experiences, and personality traits wherein a person could both follow a Paladin Code of some sort and be non lawful?  None?  It's not possible?

 I just want to apologise to people reading this thread for starting yet another debate.

My houserule was that paladin can be any alignement, they're a paladin of a God, the same way clerics are. I don't care about alignment, and barely use it at my table, because of conversation just like this one. I, too, have been railroaded by a DM saying "but your alignement is x, you can't do that !"

Quote from ClementP >>

 I just want to apologise to people reading this thread for starting yet another debate.

 

My houserule was that paladin can be any alignement, they're a paladin of a God, the same way clerics are. I don't care about alignment, and barely use it at my table, because of conversation just like this one. I, too, have been railroaded by a DM saying "but your alignement is x, you can't do that !"

I personally love the idea of a paladin that is struggling to maintain his tenets. For any Vikings fans out there like Bishop Heahmund. He's a man of god and loves his god, but he later becomes torn for his love for one of the viking shieldmaidens and is torn between keeping his celebacy and rocking her world lol

Another common archetype in life are people who are very strict in certain aspects of their life but often go the extreme opposite outside that specific thing.  Many people strictly adhere to various codes and ideals but outside those codes and ideals can be very wild.  Sort of how they emotionally compensate for that structure.  Even if you didn't allow for chaotic Paladins (which I disagree with) it easily makes an argument for at minimum neutral paladins being allowed.  Is not like paladin codes are so comprehensive they tell you how to live every aspect of your life.

The D&D alignment system, while fun to make Internet memes out of, does not produce real people.  

I much prefer the work EasyDamus did on "real" alignments, which offers a much more nuanced analysis and offers a much more diverse potential range of alignments.  "Regular" D&D generally only offers six alignments on the practical side of things, since 'Evil' alignments are much-maligned and most DMs don't like having 'Evil' players at the table.  Furthermore, a lot of DMs dislike Chaotic alignments and demand their players play either Lawful or Neutral, which restricts characters to four alignment choices - Lawful Good (i.e. "Captain Goodman, HERO of JUSTIS"), Lawful Neutral (i.e. "I'm a rules lawyer IC as well as OOC!"), Neutral Good (i.e. "I want to play a Good alignment without having to worry about evil governments"), and True Neutral (i.e. "I've never made a decision in my life and I'm not starting now").

How utterly boring.

If you're going to make use of alignment in your game at all (hint: most of the time you don't need to bother, simply let other characters judge the actions of your PCs as they stand rather than trying to slap labels on everything), you need to open the system up to allow for a broader range of options than simply "Is a stickler for the rules/is willing to occasionally bend the rules" and "is a Right Upstanding Guy/is just a normal dude".  I love the alignment wheel given in that link above because every single position on it is a valid place for an Adventurer Hero Guy to be - even the 'Evil' alignments. 

After all, we can all easily imagine a Hero seeking power and authority in order to redress some great wrong he sees in society, or to ensure that those he once failed to protect are never left unsecure again.  What is that if not somebody a single misstep away from becoming an evil tyrant?  How cool would that story be to see play out, see whether that character can stay on that thin line?

However, even then I'd recommend simply letting alignment be fluff.  A paladin is defined not by their alignment but by their Oath; if your palladalladingdong is obeying the strictures of their Oath, then they're playing properly and get to retain their palladalladingdong abilities.  Several of the Oath options can extend to non-LG alignments, and in fact some of them are specifically built for a non-LG.  The Oath of Conquest, for example, is as naked an example of a Lawful Evil palladalladingdong as ever I've seen - they even invoke the name 'Knight Tyrant' for Conquest dingdongs.  Oath of the Ancients, on the other hand, cares not a whit for precepts of law and order - that Oath fits nicely with a Chaotic Good palladalladingdong who fights to preserve the light and smite the dark because they feel a personal calling to do so, not because some god tells them to or society doesn't like those things.

Following an Oath doesn't mean you're Lawful, and being a palladalladingdong doesn't mean you're Good.  Haven't we all had enough of Lawful Stupid palladalldingdongs, anyways?

Again yurei you take everything word for word and completely ignore the facts...

Alignment in d&d are literally not strict.

They are two axis in one square. Now you can be anywhere in that square. But the final alignment is a "generalisation" of who you are.

Take the wotc alignment test and see for yourself what alignment truly are.

Then why are you insisting all Paladin's must be lawful, when the code is only one aspect of their personality that does not apply to every decision and aspect of their personality throughout their life and every day?  You're the one insisting on strict alignments, not me.  I can think of many variations of a person that can both have a code like a paladin and balance out as nonlawful overall.  You're the one insisting that having a Paladin code is so overwhelming it defines your alignment as lawful NO MATTER WHAT else is a part of your characterization.

1st off that alignment test is years old, and applies to 3.5 so the part about Paladins is out of date.  I've taken it before, and not much has changed, I'm still neutral good according to the test.  Also based on the test itself, pretty sure based on my own answers, that the code and non lawful alignments are possible, as I had some damn strong lawful answers that would allow for a code.  It just so happens I have some strong ass chaotic answers as well that counter it out.  I even had at least one answer that was firmly chaotic evil by most definitions, yet I'm good aligned by the test you're so fond of.

One of the reasons classes stopped having those hard coded alignment restrictions, is because they were stupid and over restrictive and caused arguments such as ours.  I see nothing positive that can be gained by putting that hard coding back into the game.  Just because you, for some strange reason, cannot envision a non lawful Paladin, does not mean others cannot.  Now rogues can be law abiding detectives thanks to such rules being removed.  Rangers can be dark hunters working for the bad guys.  There is nothing good to come with bringing that kind of restrictive thinking back.  Alignment is, like you said, sort of a guideline.  Start acting like it.  Remove the anachronistic hard coding from your brain.  You're half way there, take the next step.

3.5 began the removal of such restrictions, and 5th finished them off, let's keep them dead and buried, join us in embracing their removal.  Let characters be as complex as others can imagine.  You're already most of the way there, the only hang up you seem to have is Paladins, and even there you've relaxed some from the original lawful good.  You have one step to go.

As for me, I'm enjoying my lawful neutral ancestral barbarian, am am very grateful barbarians are no longer restricted to non lawful, because while he can feel the rage of his ancestors at the transgressions against his people, he is otherwise a staunch traditionalist who strongly embraces the laws and customs of his people, and his guiding principles are those traditions.  The fact that he can occasional enter great rages does not counter the other far greater aspects of his personality.

Ardenwolf. Alignment are edition neutral since they never changed from 1e and 5e.

Alignment are generality. Yes in certain aspect of the life of a paladin. He can be chaotic... But mostly to be able to get fixated on ones devotion. You need to be orderly. And order is what lawful is. Since the general player base is most likely chaotic because they favor the ability to be free most of the time and not be locked into one single thing... I believe it is why people have problems playing paladins and why paladins got their lawful stupid reputation.

But im willing to give the benefit of the doubt and simply ask people...

Give me an exemple of chaotic paladin ?

I do agree with DnDPaladin. Lawful seems to follow some kind of code, in 5e this would pertain to the oath they take. So to me Paladins are always Lawful, doesn't mean they have to be good or follow "the law" or anything like that. In my opinion the only chaotic paladin would be an oathbreaker.

Just because you have a code, doesn't mean it defines everything in your life.  That's absurd.  I disagree and so do lots of people, and the fact that many disagree is why that alignment restriction was removed.  I'm so glad the restriction was removed, because not everyone is so limited in their ability to envision complex characters.  I mean I could understand attempting to argue non chaotic I guess, but to not even allow for neutral?  That's insane.

Quote from Ardenwolf >>

Just because you have a code, doesn't mean it defines everything in your life.  That's absurd.  I disagree and so do lots of people, and the fact that many disagree is why that alignment restriction was removed.  I'm so glad the restriction was removed, because not everyone is so limited in their ability to envision complex characters.  I mean I could understand attempting to argue non chaotic I guess, but to not even allow for neutral?  That's insane.

For Paladins I do think it defines everything in your life. The 5e PHB defines the 3 lawful alignments as such, on page 122:

1. "Lawful good: creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."
2. "Lawful neutral: individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal code."
3. "Lawful evil: creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order"

Literally all of these examples show you what "code" the character normally follows. Now alignment is listed as a guideline, HOWEVER, when it comes to a paladin, who has sworn an oath to a deity, that absolutely should define their life. Any religious person that swears their life to a God normally follows that deity's rules as clearly as possible, for better or for worse. That is why I saw that all paladins are lawful, but do not have to be good, and that the only chaotic paladin should be an oathbreaker.

A complex paladin, would be one that struggles with the will to maintain his oath, but that doesn't mean he's neutral or chaotic, he is still lawful because he wants to live by this oath. If you don't want to have a character keep an oath, don't be a paladin, or be an oathbreaker. It's that simple.

Law of Thelema

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." and "thou hast no right but to do thy will."Most Thelemites hold that every person possesses a True Will, a single overall motivation for their existence. The Law of Thelema mandates that each person follow their True Will to attain fulfillment in life and freedom from restriction of their nature. Because no two True Wills can be in real conflict, this Law also prohibits one from interfering with the True Will of any other person. The notion of absolute freedom for an individual to follow his or her True Will is a cherished one among Thelemites.

Here is an example of a Code that embraces individual freedom (Chaos). So would a Paladin who follows this Code be Lawful because he follows the Code or Chaotic because of what the Code is?

Quote from Griz_Behr >>

Law of Thelema

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." and "thou hast no right but to do thy will."Most Thelemites hold that every person possesses a True Will, a single overall motivation for their existence. The Law of Thelema mandates that each person follow their True Will to attain fulfillment in life and freedom from restriction of their nature. Because no two True Wills can be in real conflict, this Law also prohibits one from interfering with the True Will of any other person. The notion of absolute freedom for an individual to follow his or her True Will is a cherished one among Thelemites.

 

Here is an example of a Code that embraces individual freedom (Chaos). So would a Paladin who follows this Code be Lawful because he follows the Code or Chaotic because of what the Code is?

That would be lawful imo because of the other agreement in this code. That is bolded above. BUT I could see how a DM could rule differently in this case. My earlier argument was mainly provided for all official paladin oaths for 5e so far.

I know there's a discussion on the table right now, but as per the original post I'd like to say one of my homebrews:

First, I don't use the optional Flanking rules as they are in the book; instead of advantage, I give a +1 to attack rolls for flanking.  I do this because while I do certainly think flanking enemies (at least most of them) should provide a bonus, I find giving advantage makes the game kind of boring.  Getting advantage is a big part of the game and lots of abilities and spells can grant it, but if you can do that by having the melee characters/enemies just team up on one thing at a time, that's all players and enemies will try and do.

Second, and kind of to make up for the flanking change (particularly for the Rogue wood elf with Elven Accuracy in my party), I have a system that is inspired heavily by the C-Team (the better show), and I'm sure others have made/use systems like it:

I give all my players a special feat called "Inspired Advantage," which, whenever they roll the max number on any die (but only once per round) they get a point of "Inspired Advantage" which they can spend before rolling any d20 roll to get advantage.  I also introduce special player-specific powers as the characters grow, which allow them to do very powerful things at the cost of more of these points.

I've only been doing this for a little while, and I'll likely need to balance it a bit better as time goes, but my players really seem to like it.

Sorry if something like this has already been mentioned here; I'm not reading all 28 pages lol.

@griz_Behr, that would be lawful. For yes he will follow his will yet he has to follow the will of another at the same time. In the end, logically... That paladin will not last long for if his will ever wants him to stop following the law. He will lose his powers. The exemple you just gave actually is a great exemple of why a paladin could never be chaotic to begin with.

As for the discution about alignment and it was removed... It was removed because everyone took neutral because why would you pick anything else ? In the end mechanically alignment were a problem becaue of spells and paladins and as such most people started using alignment to ditch the radar as neutral could not be seen by any cleric or paladin spells and abilities.

Ill add this... Alignment are a role play choice now, not a mechanic. This is the major change from all other editions. And it depends on you. If your all about mechanics then of course alignment will not matter to you or make no sense. But roleplay wise, they make a lot of sense. Because one is generally one of the alignment in life. Regardless of if they act differently or not with one or two aspect of their lives.

Also... It is ridiculous to break a paladin from the get go as soon as they do something bad. Alignment takes a lot to actually change this is not something that happens overnight.

No big, Jaysburn.  The discussion on the table is inane to the point of severe frustration anyways and shows a deep and fundamental lack of understanding of what Alignment means by a few folks.

I don't care for flanking myself either; 5e HATES numeric bonuses though, and pushes DMs very hard to use advantage/disadvantage instead because they're trying very hard to control accuracy.  I don't even know what 'bounded accuracy' is supposed to mean, but it's supposedly the core overriding Thing they hung the entire combat ruleset on.  Still.  I tend to agree that a minor-but-useful bonus to attack is better than free advantage because then there's a whole lot less levers for me to pull in a fight and a lot of other stuff just kinda falls off because bracketing an enemy does all that for you.

On the 'Inspired Advantage' bit: what's the cap for that?  How many points can a PC carry, and how do they keep track of them?  Regular Inspiration-like effects tend to get forgotten all the time in games I've seen run/run myself.  Also seems like a lot of bookkeeping, especially if you play online like I have to.  How's that been working out from a nitty-gritty standpoint?

As for the rest of this...:

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

This idiotic Alignment discussion is why alignment has been decoupled from anything meaningful in the game.  If ever alignment became important in any game I ran, I'd use the Easydamus alignment wheel rather than the "Only Lawful Good characters get to be Real People" classic D&D grid, and furthermore alignment would be assigned BY THE DM, not by the players, based on what the characters have demonstrated with their actions.  Players could appeal, but they don't get to decide their own alignment.

Finally: anyone who insists that all paladins are required to be lawful because 'you follow an Oath!  That means you have guiding principles!  That means you're Lawful!' is too mentally inflexible to merit a seat at my table.  Holy hell, that is an entirely new level of Does Not Get It.

So the three lawful alignment definitions given in the PHB that I will repeat here:

1. "Lawful good: creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."
2. "Lawful neutral: individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal code."
3. "Lawful evil: creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order"

That specifically list a "code" which is essentially the same thing as an oath. I'm not sure how that's idiotic of me to say that someone who follows an oath or code should be of a lawful alignment. It's literally there word for word.

I understand some tables ignore alignment, which is fine, but any paladin that follows their oath and lets it guide their life and decisions should be lawful, and if they aren't then they shouldn't be playing with alignment in the first place.