I wonder that, if in the Core Rules under Alignment, the publishers should have replaced the word 'killing' with 'murder' under the Good Vs Evil section? Maybe that would have helped clarify it for the RAW folks a little bit better? For example: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and murdering others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and murder without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, murdering for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Hobo 1 : Them dern guards! They got blood on my blade!
Hobo 2 : Yeah! Imagine them fellers trying to arrest us for raisin skellytons!Hobo 3 : Nah guys, they was gonna murder us, not arrest us. They was conspiratin with that judge what woulda passed sentence on us for raisin skellytons! That thur is a hangin o-fence! They was gonna murder us!
Hobo 1 : Yeah, we had to kill them durn murderers. Murderers is evil, that's why we kill, not murder!
Hobo 2 : Hey, that means the durn King made that law about raisin skellytons just to set us up! It's a con-dern-spiracy I tell ya!
Hobo 3 : Right! Let's go kill that murderin king and his puppet murderer judge!
I honestly can't see how there's any ambiguity.
If you create something, use craft (see quote). If you aren't creating something, use profession.
If you want to make armor, are you creating something? Yes? Then use Craft. Are you creating a fork? If so, then use craft. Are you creating something to argue in court? No, then use Profession (Lawyer). Are you creating an ear of corn? No? Then use Profession (Farmer).
Logically [evil] spells can't be evil acts in the sense of causing alignment shift because neutral clerics can cast them. If spells with alignment descriptors caused alignment shift anyone using them would drift towards extreme alignments so quickly there would be no reason to have them available to neutral alignments.
The only alternative is that all alignment descriptor spells cause incremental shifts and a neutral character not only can but must carefully preserve his neutrality by balancing his use of spells with one descriptor against spells of the opposite descriptor.
The CN druid who finds himself summoning with the celestial template to fight daemons had better summon some fiendish templated animals on his day off lest he stray into CG territory and become an ex-druid if alignment descriptor spells can cause alignment shift.
Logically? No. You are assuming that these evil acts are directly additive and accumulate over time until some fixed value is reached. Don't think of the that way. Alignment describes how a character behaves in general, lookong at them in a long view. If a neutral character occasionally casts evil spells or does other evil stuff,as long as they are still generally neutral in the long term, they are OK and can stay neutral.
PFS is an exception because the DM cant be expected to have a long term impression of the PC. Thus the "instant snapshot" of single acts must be used to determine alignment.Edit: made minor edit above...
Hobo 1 : Them dern guards! They got blood on my blade!
Hobo 2 : Yeah! Imagine them fellers trying to arrest us for raisin skellytons!
Hobo 3 : Nah guys, they was gonna murder us, not arrest us. They was conspiratin with that judge what woulda passed sentence on us for raisin skellytons! That thur is a hangin o-fence! They was gonna murder us!
Hobo 1 : Yeah, we had to kill them durn murderers. Murderers is evil, that's why we kill, not murder!
Hobo 2 : Hey, that means the durn King made that law about raisin skellytons just to set us up! It's a con-dern-spiracy I tell ya!
Hobo 3 : Right! Let's go kill that murderin king and his puppet murderer judge!Because every example must involve undead, right?
Hobo 1 : Them dern guards! They got blood on my blade!
Hobo 2 : Yeah! Imagine them fellers trying to arrest us fer collectin a toll to use this here back alley!Hobo 3 : Nah guys, they was gonna murder us, not arrest us. They was conspiratin with that judge what woulda passed sentence on us for collectin a toll! That thur is a hangin o-fence! They was gonna murder us!
Hobo 1 : Yeah, we had to kill them durn murderers. Murderers is evil, that's why we kill, not murder!
Hobo 2 : Hey, that means the durn King made that law about the street belongin to him and not bein a toll alley just to set us up! It's a con-dern-spiracy I tell ya!
Hobo 3 : Right! Let's go kill that murderin king and his puppet murderer judge!
Logically? No. You are assuming that these evil acts are directly additive and accumulate over time. Don't think of the that way. Alignment describes how a character behaves in general, lookong at them in a long view. If a neutral character occasionally casts evil spells or does other evil stuff,as long as they are still generally neutral in the long term, they are OK and can stay neutral.
PFS is an exception because the DM cant be expected to have a long term impression of the PC. Thus the "instant snapshot" of single acts must be used to determine alignment.
Bill,
This is the intarwebs. If you keep using logic and reason, you're going to fill the tubes up with the gore of explody heads!:)
...In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc...
I was once in a group that had the same attitude toward wagons/coaches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the problem with black & white alignment. It. Does. Not. Work. It cannot work. There will ALWAYS be a contradiction or something that causes it to break down. Look at popular media. Any system, period, that is based on absolutes will not be able to work. Nature itself is a series of checks and balances.
Thankfully, alignment and how it applies to characters isn't generally characterized as being black and white.
...In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc...I was once in a group that had the same attitude toward wagons/coaches.
Wagons are fairly safe. They can't sink (bye bye equipment) and you can jump off them any time
I'm going to do the wise thing and back out of this alignment discussion. It's really impossible to have any type of reasonable discussion with people on alignment when they don't even bother to read what is said and then add far more to what a poster said than what any reasonable person would have intended. I should have known better.
Yes Bob, you should have.
Wagons are fairly safe. They can't sink (bye bye equipment) and you can jump off them any timeWatch out for falling damage and homebrew broken bone tables!
Oh how I loved those 'you fell down, roll on the falling D100 table do see what happened' systems...
...That is a great deal of what I mean. If it fits the background/concept you have for the character then by all means take it. If it doesn't then please don't take it at all.
Both characters fit the world. Its just one did not want to fit the mold others expected from childhood. To me that is perfectly logical and common even in real life...
I'm not sure about the OP, but what I was getting at is that the players may not have made any effort to fit their character to the campaign. The characters fit the world just fine but were nearly crippled trying to contribute to the campaign. All in the name of 'optimizing' the character they had invisioned.
I once tried to run a campaign that was going to be largely outdoor/wilderness mostly in the forest, desert, and mountains. The players KNEW that and had AGREED to it. The characters:
1) A gladiator with absolutly zero skils or abilities that did not directly apply to an arena fight. No languages, no perception, no sense motive, etc... (might have had 1 or 2 points in ride). The closest was max'd acrobatics.
2) An urban ranger with a specialty tied to the specific city they started in. Knowing full well the city was under siege and would probably be destroyed.
3) A full plate mounted paladin with 8 int and only skill points in ride.
4) An AQUATIC drow elf pirate/sorcerer who ended up using most of his spells, feats, and skills just to remain alive and functional away from the water in daylight.
I was blamed for not making the campaign conform to their strong points. I supposed you could say they didn't want to play the same game as me, but I was given no info to expect they refused to play the campaign that had been agreed on. I did not stay with that group very long.
The characters were wonderfully optimised for what they were trying to build. Yes, they fit in the world. Yes, they had a semi-believeable back story. Yes, they could even kinda work together in some specific situations.
No they couldn't accomplish hardly anything in the campaign.
In those instances I would adapt the campaign to fit to them more.
The players drive the story IMO.
I do a lot of prep work as well. Players that don't work well with other players or the GM in general tend to not last very long at my table.
I have had players that will go against the grain for the sake of going against the grain.
Campaign Story: Low magic, magic frowned upon, need to be licensed to use it or else breaking the law
Player: I'm going to run an archmage. I don't have a license. Because that's stupid.
At this point, all is still well. Player wants to play a character outside the bounds of the law. If character is played smart, would be a fun contribution to the party. If player insists that character brazenly shows his magical abilities and then gets upset when his character is arrested (and in some cases executed if he was summoning dead things and demons), then that's where we have the issue.
In that instance, it's a case of a single player going against the campaign theme and then choosing ultimately to push the boundaries as far as he can. Those are instances where there is no working with the GM or the campaign world, and if the player continually does that, player is politely asked to vacate the table for someone who will.
EXAMPLE 2: Same campaign only this time multiple players decide they are going to run archmages.
In this case you have several players deciding to go against the main theme of the campaign world. You are now presented with an option.
You either:
A) enforce the main points of the campaign world on the party, in which case most if not all of the party will end up imprisoned, and you have them executed to teach them a lesson. The campaign ends.
B) Most of the party is imprisoned and you let a story plot develop around this, where the king or whoever sees the use of these characters and you let the arc head that way. The players may either cooperate or complain that you are out to get them and imprisoning them and making them work for the king is "no fun".
C) You alter the campaign and write in a way for magic using characters who brazenly break the laws to exist.
D) End the campaign and find a new campaign plot.
E) End the campaign and find new people to play with who will go along with your plot devices.
Here's the crux now. When you are dealing with a PARTY of players going against the campaign... then the GM is now the one who is odd man out.
Of all the options, only A really sticks me as being "wrong". B works if the party can take as well as they can give. If they can't then the GM needs to evaluate if he wants to continue with the party. this option is hard for some players to deal with because it means that they are "losing" and they are having to give in to the GM. Some people have issues with that.
Option C is an option that some GMs will guffaw at because it means they have to be the one who "loses" and bows to the whim of the players. Some people have issues with that.
Option D is a stalemate.
Option E is a waste of time but sometimes neccessary if a GM has a playstyle vastly different than his players.
I'm going to do the wise thing and back out of this alignment discussion. It's really impossible to have any type of reasonable discussion with people on alignment when they don't even bother to read what is said and then add far more to what a poster said than what any reasonable person would have intended. I should have known better.
Well you wanted to talk about the RAW and common sense. It just seems that some people are very selective with both. Nothing I posted was irrelevant to what you said.
I wonder that, if in the Core Rules under Alignment, the publishers should have replaced the word 'killing' with 'murder' under the Good Vs Evil section? Maybe that would have helped clarify it for the RAW folks a little bit better? For example: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and murdering others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and murder without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, murdering for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
It probably wouldn't change much. See, everyone who is for a black & white alignment system doesn't like semantics. Circumstances don't matter in a black & white world, because if they did, it wouldn't be a black & white world. The only difference between killing in self defense and killing in murder is of course circumstances. The difference between the two is covered in that big gap I like to call "shades of gray".
Here's an example. I once had an argument with Sean K. about alignment spells, because by RAW it doesn't say casting [Evil] spells is an evil act, and by RAW it merely depends on what you do with them.
He gave an example of a hypothetical spell which required the death of an innocent/good creature as a spell component, but in turn would a cure for any ailment/disease/curse whatever. He noted that the spell was innately evil 'cause it required the sacrifice of innocent life to cast, or to create. And demanded that if a party was to loot a scroll of this spell off an evil cleric, who had killed someone to create the scroll, that using the scroll to cure a child with cancer (rather than burning the scroll) was horribly evil.
Evil because it requires a good character to die for the spell to be cast. But wait...
What if someone willingly died? That goes from murdering an innocent to heroic sacrifice. You could very well call the spell "Martyr's Gift" because a good character dies and somebody else is restored, and it would be no different.
It's not what you use, it's how you use it. A knife can be used to spread butter or to spread blood. It can be used to protect the innocent, or it could be used to pillage and plunder. Even this hypothetical evil spell, which Sean K. described as being evil purely because it had the [Evil] tag from requiring an innocent life to fuel the spell, could be used for good, and in a way fully fitting everything that is virtuous and pure in the good alignment rules, proving that Black & White doesn't work even by his own example.
As someone mentioned, you can walk into an orphanage, schoolyard, or whatever, utter Holy Word and slaughter everyone in there with the raw goodness of the spell. Congratulations, you're an evil bastard because you used the spell in an evil way. Likewise, a cleric of valor who calls up undead warriors to defend a town against encroaching hordes of hobgoblin raiders is doing a good thing by protecting the people with as little loss of life as possible.
A roleplaying game with black & white morality is a useless thing, because you cannot really explore different viewpoints, concepts, or ideas. Despite their having existed tribes of cannibals who considered ritual cannibalism a holy part of funeral rites (carrying on a piece of them within yourself forever) it's evil 'cause some guy writing a book about evil found cannibalism squicky, and decided that he didn't like the idea of eating somebody, so it must be evil.
Kind of like how when WotC was devoured by Hasbro, stuff that was ugly was quickly being branded evil, and anything pretty was good. Hell, even with their good-succubus posted on the WotC website years ago, they took a good concept (a demon redeemed by an angel) and stuffed it up. They even emphasized that the prettiness of the angel and/or succubus was pretty much the reason as to why the succubus bothered to follow the angel, and the angel just wanted to earn rep with his peers by redeeming the demon out of his own sense of selfishness.
Seriously... *facepalm*
A) enforce the main points of the campaign world on the party, in which case most if not all of the party will end up imprisoned, and you have them executed to teach them a lesson. The campaign ends.
B) Most of the party is imprisoned and you let a story plot develop around this, where the king or whoever sees the use of these characters and you let the arc head that way. The players may either cooperate or complain that you are out to get them and imprisoning them and making them work for the king is "no fun".
C) You alter the campaign and write in a way for magic using characters who brazenly break the laws to exist.
D) End the campaign and find a new campaign plot.
E) End the campaign and find new people to play with who will go along with your plot devices.
Here's the crux now. When you are dealing with a PARTY of players going against the campaign... then the GM is now the one who is odd man out.
Of all the options, only A really sticks me as being "wrong". B works if the party can take as well as they can give. If they can't then the GM needs to evaluate if he wants to continue with the party. this option is hard for some players to deal with because it means that they are "losing" and they are having to give in to the GM. Some people have issues with that.
Option C is an option that some GMs will guffaw at because it means they have to be the one who "loses" and bows to the whim of the players. Some people have issues with that.
Option D is a stalemate.
Option E is a waste of time but sometimes neccessary if a GM has a playstyle vastly different than his players.
Option A. Every. Single. Time.
If the PCs are intentionally going striking matches to watch them burn, prepare for things to get hot. In virtually every situation given, the campaign either loses its integrity, or the campaign ends. So end it with a bang. Ok, the party all ends up in prison or dead and the game ends. How is this worse than just ending the game otherwise?
"Ok, you guys obviously didn't want to play this game, so I'm just going to end it here." isn't really better than...
"After a grueling battle with the authorities, you go out in a blaze of eldritch fire like a metaphysical Bonnie & Clyde. You can roll some new characters that fit in this campaign, or you can tell me what you want me to run."
A) enforce the main points of the campaign world on the party, in which case most if not all of the party will end up imprisoned, and you have them executed to teach them a lesson. The campaign ends.
B) Most of the party is imprisoned and you let a story plot develop around this, where the king or whoever sees the use of these characters and you let the arc head that way. The players may either cooperate or complain that you are out to get them and imprisoning them and making them work for the king is "no fun".
C) You alter the campaign and write in a way for magic using characters who brazenly break the laws to exist.
D) End the campaign and find a new campaign plot.
E) End the campaign and find new people to play with who will go along with your plot devices.
Here's the crux now. When you are dealing with a PARTY of players going against the campaign... then the GM is now the one who is odd man out.
Of all the options, only A really sticks me as being "wrong". B works if the party can take as well as they can give. If they can't then the GM needs to evaluate if he wants to continue with the party. this option is hard for some players to deal with because it means that they are "losing" and they are having to give in to the GM. Some people have issues with that.
Option C is an option that some GMs will guffaw at because it means they have to be the one who "loses" and bows to the whim of the players. Some people have issues with that.
Option D is a stalemate.
Option E is a waste of time but sometimes neccessary if a GM has a playstyle vastly different than his players.
Option A. Every. Single. Time.
If the PCs are intentionally going striking matches to watch them burn, prepare for things to get hot. In virtually every situation given, the campaign either loses its integrity, or the campaign ends. So end it with a bang. Ok, the party all ends up in prison or dead and the game ends. How is this worse than just ending the game otherwise?
"Ok, you guys...
Less QQ more Pew Pew!
But you are right. If a campaign spirals downward what good is it to play the little girl?
I think everyone has a better feeling if their character went down in a good fight. And you as a DM can have a little feeling of revenge :)
First, the spell requiring a sacrifice rather than a willing sacrifice is probably going to be designed to torture the sacrifice throughout the casting time of the spell, and may very well twist and torment (or even eradicate) his soul in order to power its magic. The good aligned willing sacrifice version is going to be painless and will inspire higher powers through determination and self-sacrifice, allowing the party to go on to its reward. Mechanically, sure, they're the same, but fluff wise they are vastly different.
Didn't you read what he wrote?
He takes the EVIL version with all the torture, pain and soul squishing and sacrifices himself for the life of someone else.Thats an exalted deed and not something evil. As he has pointed out correctly.
.
.
This whole ultra black & white attitude that the Paizo company shows is leading nowhere as they can be contradicted by Ashiel and even do themselves with the "OH YEAH AND ALL UNDEAD THINGIES ARE SOOOOOO EVIL ITS UNSPEAKABLE EVEN THE GENOCIDE LOOKS PALE AGAINST IT" and in the next sentence its like... oh yeah... but the Ghosts are undead and not evil... and the Juju thingies aren't evil, too, but undead...
|
This whole ultra black & white attitude that the Paizo company shows is leading nowhere as they can be contradicted by Ashiel and even do themselves with the "OH YEAH AND ALL UNDEAD THINGIES ARE SOOOOOO EVIL ITS UNSPEAKABLE EVEN THE GENOCIDE LOOKS PALE AGAINST IT" and in the next sentence its like... oh yeah... but the Ghosts are undead and not evil... and the Juju thingies aren't evil either but undead...
Pssst the main villain of the very first Pathfinder AP episode was
CE Aasimar
So you might want to cut down on cheap snark :)
This whole ultra black & white attitude that the Paizo company shows is leading nowhere as they can be contradicted by Ashiel and even do themselves with the "OH YEAH AND ALL UNDEAD THINGIES ARE SOOOOOO EVIL ITS UNSPEAKABLE EVEN THE GENOCIDE LOOKS PALE AGAINST IT" and in the next sentence its like... oh yeah... but the Ghosts are undead and not evil... and the Juju thingies aren't evil either but undead...
Pssst the main villain of the very first Pathfinder AP episode was
** spoiler omitted **
So you might want to cut down on cheap snark :)
Aasimars have no alignment restrictions in PF (and never had before). They are plane touched only.
And how is this even comparable to the wanted excursus of SRK and JJ into the depths of philosophy and the pure ANTI LIFE force and making things out of it is a mockery of everything in existance... and contradicting themselves in the same sentence... ;)
|
|
Aasimars have no alignment restrictions in PF (and never had before). They are plane touched only.
This whole ultra black & white attitude that the Paizo company shows is leading nowhere as they can be contradicted by Ashiel and even do themselves with the "OH YEAH AND ALL UNDEAD THINGIES ARE SOOOOOO EVIL ITS UNSPEAKABLE EVEN THE GENOCIDE LOOKS PALE AGAINST IT" and in the next sentence its like... oh yeah... but the Ghosts are undead and not evil... and the Juju thingies aren't evil either but undead...
Pssst the main villain of the very first Pathfinder AP episode was
** spoiler omitted **
So you might want to cut down on cheap snark :)
My bestiary says NG, but I digress.
There's plenty of not-black/white in PF. The whole "undead are evil" is a legacy of 3.5, and any beef about that should be taken to WotC and 3.5 designers.
Aasimars have no alignment restrictions in PF (and never had before). They are plane touched only.
This whole ultra black & white attitude that the Paizo company shows is leading nowhere as they can be contradicted by Ashiel and even do themselves with the "OH YEAH AND ALL UNDEAD THINGIES ARE SOOOOOO EVIL ITS UNSPEAKABLE EVEN THE GENOCIDE LOOKS PALE AGAINST IT" and in the next sentence its like... oh yeah... but the Ghosts are undead and not evil... and the Juju thingies aren't evil either but undead...
Pssst the main villain of the very first Pathfinder AP episode was
** spoiler omitted **
So you might want to cut down on cheap snark :)
My bestiary says NG, but I digress.
There's plenty of not-black/white in PF. The whole "undead are evil" is a legacy of 3.5, and any beef about that should be taken to WotC and 3.5 designers.
Well I thought that Paizo was claiming to have IMPROVED 3.x onto the next level?
So why did they jump the bandwagon of the extreme black and whiteness of Vile Darkness & Exalted Deeds and made it even WORSE instead of thinking it over and going for a more conciliated approach
First, the spell requiring a sacrifice rather than a willing sacrifice is probably going to be designed to torture the sacrifice throughout the casting time of the spell, and may very well twist and torment (or even eradicate) his soul in order to power its magic. The good aligned willing sacrifice version is going to be painless and will inspire higher powers through determination and self-sacrifice, allowing the party to go on to its reward. Mechanically, sure, they're the same, but fluff wise they are vastly different.
You are adding all of that stuff. None of that was mentioned. The spell was pretty strait forward. You just had to kill an innocent/good person as part of casting the spell, and the spell had the [Evil] descriptor. Notice what you are doing here, and then think very carefully on why you are doing it. In this case, you are trying to invent evil things that you have to do to cast the spell, which are evil things, but none of it is backed up by the rules. This is exactly what the Black & White people do almost 100% of the time.
The effect was strait forward. Kill a good guy, heal somebody, [Evil] descriptor. As strait forward as virtually every other spell with the [Evil] descriptor, or spell with the [Good] or [Fire] descriptor for that matter.
However, in an effort to somehow discredit the logic used here, you made up several things that the spell clearly does not do.
1) You have added torture and torment to the spell, where none was mentioned. Ironically, as Alienfreak notes, this would only make a heroic sacrifice more heroic.
2) You have claimed that it affects the soul of the person you're killing, or even destroys it, when it clearly doesn't. There's nothing in the core rules that can destroy a soul. Even mindless undead don't destroy or trap souls (only trap the soul does and isn't [Evil] I might add), as while their bodies are in use, they can still return to life via Clone spells or similar methods that don't require their bodies.
Now pay close attention to what you have done here, and then ask yourself "Why did I do this?". "Why did I have to begin making up all this extra stuff that is neither in, nor implied, by the rules as presented, to try and make this somehow less valid?"
======
It's stuff like this that makes me greatly miss the philosophical approach that 3E, 2E, and 1E took with morality. I miss the days when mindless creatures were Neutral (seriously, skeletons and zombies are neutral in 2E and 3E, but not 3.5/4E) because they couldn't make moral decisions, and your motivations, reasons, and attitude over time was what your alignment was based on.
The moment that the BoVD/BoED and 3.5 came out, all of it went to crap. Alignment hasn't worked since then. Heck, the BoVD and BoED didn't even work, because a lot of the material in the BoVD is slapped with the [Evil] subtype for no logical reason (there's a spell in the book that lets you communicate through mirrors and has the [Evil] tag for no apparent reason), while the Book of Exalted Deeds spends the first third of the book explaining good, and then the next two thirds of the book telling you how to break all the rules of being good with these new [Good] things; including condemning poisons and diseases, only to give you something that is just like poisons and diseases, only named differently, with even more heinous pain and suffering.
In 3E, it was easy to explain why ancient tombs were typically protected by undead. Mindless undead, being like robots, followed the last order given as best as possible. They were the perfect sentries for guarding any place for exceptionally long periods of time. "Stay here and drive off anyone who enters that doesn't bear this seal", and being Neutral could be used to guard sacred places or evil places, depending on your purposes as a GM.
It was also easy to explain why dark and twisted spellcasters typically employ undead. They're simple, available, don't talk back, don't question orders, don't become afraid, can't reveal your secrets, can't give away your plans, and they don't have to like you. Perfect minions, and readily available by just raiding a graveyard or village.
Likewise, it was easy to explain why gray and white necromancers had such a bad reputation. Because of all the previous mentioned crazies who use undead to do their dirty work, 'causing people to be even more creeped out or scared of your meat-bots, because the last twelve necromancers they met were out for their own selfish personal power, and rose their Aunt Jemima to wipe the blood of their village off his shoes.
Everything made sense, and you had all your staples, including the anti-hero using distrusted magics for good causes, and everyone was happy.
Well I thought that Paizo was claiming to have IMPROVED 3.x onto the next level?So why did they jump the bandwagon of the extreme black and whiteness of Vile Darkness & Exalted Deeds and made it even WORSE instead of thinking it over and going for a more conciliated approach
*sigh* AF, backwards compatibility with 3.5 was a major point of PF (it sold me on it). It's what 4E completely lacked. It meant maintaining a number of traditions in the game (including the undead=evil trope which has pretty much been core to D&D since 1974) and just slipping in some mechanical fixes. If you don't like it, use Rule 0 and change it for your game. Otherwise, it's there. The reason for Ghosts and Juju Zombies being different has to do with different origins iirc in any case and is pulling away from that tradition. Happy?
The rules for PF require a DM / GM because they require interpretation even if all you're trying to do is RAW. Inevitably it ends up RAI. Or Rule 0 / Homebrew. Alignment is always a flash point for that. Especially if you get the type of players who try to finess the system. Arguing the fine points of something like that online is pretty much guaranteed to fail. Too many ways to misinterprete, too many fine points that are assumed but not typed, etc.
It's generally not worth having a stroke over. Btw, dissing the Devs on their own forums is, at the least, impolite. Manners are a "good thing" no matter what your stance on alignment.
*sigh* AF, backwards compatibility with 3.5 was a major point of PF (it sold me on it). It's what 4E completely lacked. It meant maintaining a number of traditions in the game (including the undead=evil trope which has pretty much been core to D&D since 1974) and just slipping in some mechanical fixes. If you don't like it, use Rule 0 and change it for your game. Otherwise, it's there. The reason for Ghosts and Juju Zombies being different has to do with different origins iirc in any case and is pulling away from that tradition. Happy?
Not quite. Mindless creatures were quite clearly Neutral in 1E, 2E, and 3E. You retain less backwards compatibility with the combat maneuver system than you do fixing this alignment problem, and yet the alignment issue isn't fixed and combat maneuvers are the wave of the future. Da Heck?
It's generally not worth having a stroke over. Btw, dissing the Devs on their own forums is, at the least, impolite. Manners are a "good thing" no matter what your stance on alignment.
I haven't seen Alienfreak dissing any of the developers personally; unless you mean the criticism of their choices for the game path, or the criticism of their reasons for it; which last I checked is entirely acceptable on this forum because the folks at Paizo aren't some power crazy fools out to silence and quench the voice of teh rebel scum. :P
Being able to accept criticism is part of being mature, and it reflects very well on the Paizo staff. I say nothing I would not accept myself if the roles were reversed, and I imagine Alienfreak does the same.
i play with a lot of demented players. with both weekly william and tuesday tony. both groups make south american mythology look like a kindergarten story.
Are any of those online?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i play with a lot of demented players. with both weekly william and tuesday tony. both groups make south american mythology look like a kindergarten story.
Heheh, to each his own. Disturbing as hell to me, but then again if it makes you guys happy, and doesn't hurt anyone, who am I to judge, right? :P
It's not like I don't have a fair amount of tongue in cheek adult themes in my own games. They just tend to be quirky things like when the party finds out that one of the NPCs has a pair of mothers 'cause one is a spellcaster with shapechanging abilities, or that the wizard's wife is actually his familiar who is continuously under the effects of an alter self spell.
Heck, my kid brother (11 years old at the time) played a lich sorcerer who eventually decided he wanted a family to go with his empire and began growing them in magical vats.
Good times. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
neither of them are. they are in person on the tabletop at the local FLGS.
.
Too bad...
.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, we have a hunter called Inquisitor now, so obviously someone was thinking it. Also, terrible as it is, the inquisition is great fodder for RPG stories. I mean, the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron had an inquisition against lycanthropes, which the church was still trying to break away from. Eberron likewise does everything short of throwing out alignments completely, including allowing clerics and such to cast spells regardless of their actual alignment.Why? 'Cause those things are conductive to fun, exciting, dramatic fantasy RPGs. The inquisition was terrible, and an affront to humanity and decency; but isn't that the point? Adventure and conflict isn't about that one time long ago when everyone got along and lived happily ever after. No, it's about halfling slaves trying to escape the country, and inquistors burning down the houses of their enemies, and the party caught in the middle and trying to bring some hope and goodness to the world that burns around them.
Yeah, have an inquisition. Nothing wrong with that. They make great bad guys. Or even morally dubious allies against a greater evil, but don't claim they're the good guys. Lawful evil church/kingdom. Sure. Lawful Neutral, probably fine. "Champion of Justice"? Not so much.
I was commenting more on the fact that the D&D rules basically make such things impossible. For example, I noted that Eberron through out the alignment restrictions for divine casters casting spells. Why did they do this? So that evil clerics could corrupt and pervert the religion from within. Maybe the Arch Bishop of the Silver Flame is actually very evil, and is leading the inquisition. The masses buy into his propaganda and don't get to see what goes on behind the scenes, while the current leader of the religion is kept pacified, unaware, or even made into a puppet.
In the core rules, you're not allowed to cast spells opposed to your cleric's alignment, so the moment the big bad cannot cast good spells anymore, bam, everyone knows something is up, his cover is blown, he is instantly revealed to be a huge bastard, he is dethroned, and all the party had to do was ask him to please cast protection from evil to prove his innocence, and he couldn't do it.
On a side note, the alignment restriction is actually a 3E invention. There were no such restrictions on spells in 1E or 2E. In fact, animate dead specifically notes that good clerics only use the spell if needed, not for personal gain, because abusing the spell isn't nice. It wasn't until 3E that spells even had alignment descriptors and the cleric restriction was invented.
|
well, to infiltrate sandpoint, i have to maintain my regular shapeshifting. so i pretend to be an Aasimaar Altar Girl of Sarenrae. the false innocence adds to the disguise. i really intend to bring madness all over Golarion. *the little "Aasimaar Girl" gives a Sadistic yet playful childish smile* heehee, i'm really a chaotic evil nephilim who follows Lamashtu. my mother WAS an angel. she got tempted by madness. i was evil from the womb. Nualia is my first cousin on my mother's side. *Rena Laugh*
It's not like I don't have a fair amount of tongue in cheek adult themes in my own games. They just tend to be quirky things like when the party finds out that one of the NPCs has a pair of mothers 'cause one is a spellcaster with shapechanging abilities, or that the wizard's wife is actually his familiar who is continuously under the effects of an alter self spell.
I was just picturing the familiar as Miracle Max and the lady in the background yelling, "I'm not a witch! I'm your wife!"