| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the alignment system disappear from Pathfinder. There are plenty of RPGs that deal with Good and Evil without the vagaries of an imposed ethics system like that which we have now (and how in the name of Gygax did he come up with this crap?).
The nice thing about getting rid of alignments: without Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or whatever it would be easier to see which players are just being d!+%$eads in their roleplaying (i.e. paladins, "evil" characters). We already know they're being jerks but at least they wouldn't be able to justify their actions by basing them on "I'm just behaving according to my alignment."
Plus, there would be a helluva lot less paladin/alignment threads on these boards.
Simple answer: too many "sacred cow" spells to deal with.
Real answer: the problems stand between the chairs and the character sheets, not in the rules. Deal with them. With fire, pointy things and a maniacal laughter.
I'm just gonna throw out a guess, but I think that may be illegal...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are ways to make the sacred cow spells work without alignments. You'd probably be left with just Holy Word and Blasphemy and maybe they would only affect certain creatures (faiths in opposition or the like).
Monte Cook managed to do it for Arcana Evolved and it would just as easily be compatible for Pathfinder.
Smite Evil might only work against undead, fiends, chromatic dragons, clerics of evil gods, etc. The things we use in the game could still be made to work without the alignments.
Here is the entry from my house rules on Alignment - which leaves the spells et al which deal with this element of the game still useful, whilst removing the roleplay chains the arbitrary and childishly simple Alignment definitions from the complexities of mortal psyche;
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT
Characters or entities in Myriad who have not made a particularly focussed stand somewhere within the polarised ethos of the game world merely have an entry for alignment as a roleplay guide - they do not ‘transmit’ their alignment.
In effect, detect spells, powers and similar abilities to determine or effect alignment get no reading or do not work on those who are not Undead, Outsiders, or Paladin/Cleric type classes.
Changes in alignment forced by strong good/evil/lawful/chaotic actions or the repeated use of aligned powers can flag the character responsible as aligned (during, and for some time afterwards determined by the strength of the action) unless there are mitigating circumstances, relevant remorse/regret or GM-determined cultural, racial or religious factors to counterbalance this.
Thus a paladin detecting evil in an unpossessed mortal humanoid would know that recent of repeated evil deeds had stained their soul and the person needs dealing with.
I think this house rule is far more mature and allows for complex characterisation without the straighjacket and baggage associated with strict alignment definition.
There have been a myriad of threats about this.
The short is that you can remove alignment from the game easily. Monsters have "evil" or "good" or "chaotic" as keywords in their descriptions. Simply rule that these spells only work against these monsters.
You may also rule that Paladins are always "lawful" and "good" and Clerics share the dominant alignment of their deities and you are golden without much of a hassle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of really easy to remove alignment--just say, "hey, there's no alignment." Done. I've done it in every D&D game I've ever run.
Yep unless they are really strongly aligned (Clerics, Undead, Outsiders, places charged with divine energy, etc) they simply don't show up as anything other than gradations of neutral.
Alignment thus becomes a measure of your usual tendencies instead of a straight jacket that limits you.
Technically it tends to weaken the power level of some classes(like the paladin) that typically depend on a variety of evil opponents in order to be comparable with other classes but those can generally be modified to match the altered universe assumptions.
If you do incorporate these changes I do like to include stuff like corruption to reflect typical fantasy concepts like a town that just feels wrong that wouldn't typically be accounted for with this modified alignment system.
Not to be totally flip or anything, but...
Smite Evil might only work against undead, fiends, chromatic dragons, clerics of evil gods, etc.Irony!
Ironic how? Getting rid of the alignment system doesn't do away with Good and Evil. Asmodeus is still the Devil, etc. By default, clerics of deities granting the infliction of wounds rather than the curing thereof would likely qualify.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is not a problem if every player reads through the rules about them. The problem is that people hear "lawful", "good", "evil", "neutral" and "chaotic" and they assume what that means.
They take "lawful good" to mean what we in the western world deem as good - which is actually closer to chaotic good. Evil is of course everything that we think is bad, which basically means that everyone who lived in the Middle Ages were evil.
Alignment is not a relativist system and if you treat it as if it is, then it will only lead to grief.
Funny. People I know who treat alignment as relativist have very little issues with it. People who try to apply absolutes are the ones I find have the most issues.
I agree with you on applying modern ethics of good and evil. I find most people aren't willing to let a Paladin slaughter infidels like he should.
I'd like to see the alignment system disappear from Pathfinder. There are plenty of RPGs that deal with Good and Evil without the vagaries of an imposed ethics system like that which we have now (and how in the name of Gygax did he come up with this crap?).
The nice thing about getting rid of alignments: without Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or whatever it would be easier to see which players are just being d!$@@eads in their roleplaying (i.e. paladins, "evil" characters). We already know they're being jerks but at least they wouldn't be able to justify their actions by basing them on "I'm just behaving according to my alignment."
Plus, there would be a helluva lot less paladin/alignment threads on these boards.
Pretty much the alignment system was inspired by Michael Moorcock.
Plenty of systems allow roleplaying good vs evil without alignment, but I am quite glad D&D uses alignment. There are plenty of systems though that one can switch to if alignment really offends. It is easy enough to house rule away, but alignment is one sacred cow I am willing to nurture and never bring to the slaughter.
It is one of those rules though, if you get rid of it for your campaign will have very little cascading effect.
For those of us that have been playing D&D for awhile, it is nice to keep it, and really not that hard to use.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is deeply rooted in the game, and it is the only "true" "role-playing" rule.
It is also really easy to downplay if it causes problems. Just use it as a descriptive trait, not a prescriptive rule.
I used to despise alignment. At some point I discovered:
If things like and and and and and and and and and and bother me that much, there are literally dozens of other great games that will address those issues in a different way. Pathfinder (and its predecessors) are the only games that address these things in a Pathfinder way. Sometimes I am in a mood for that classic experience.
Honestly, I can't really understand why people keep looking for a modernist RPG experience from a game that embraces its heritage so blatantly. The only reason I can think of is that people just don't know about all of the other RPGs that exist. Those games are great and should be played! Pathfinder should be played for Pathfinder's sake. If we turn it into a modernist RPG, we'll have lost something unique and beautiful in its own right.
Ironic how? Getting rid of the alignment system doesn't do away with Good and Evil. Asmodeus is still the Devil, etc. By default, clerics of deities granting the infliction of wounds rather than the curing thereof would likely qualify.Not to be totally flip or anything, but...
Smite Evil might only work against undead, fiends, chromatic dragons, clerics of evil gods, etc.Irony!
You were complaining about how alignment needs to be dumped, and then use a label for the alignment system when trying to describe why it is not needed.
So in effect you would get rid of the alignment system in name only.
There would still be good and evil yes. So you still have alignments. How would that make anything different?
Honestly, I can't really understand why people keep looking for a modernist RPG experience from a game that embraces its heritage so blatantly. The only reason I can think of is that people just don't know about all of the other RPGs that exist. Those games are great and should be played! Pathfinder should be played for Pathfinder's sake. If we turn it into a modernist RPG, we'll have lost something unique and beautiful in its own right.
you have said this much more elegantly than I in the past.
I play Pathfinder because I like the old traditions of D&D. I rejected 4e because it got rid of those traditions that I wanted from D&D. I embraced pathfinder because it kept those traditions.
There are plenty of roleplaying systems that can accomodate the needs of people that do not want alignments in their game.
I pretty much feel that way about lots of posts that say Eliminate X from Pathfinder 'cause I don't want it.
OK then find the game that suits you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is worth adding:
I don't want to be misconstrued as dismissive. "Go play another game" is something that is offered in a mean-spirited way too often, IMO.
I mean this in the nicest way possible: If certain parts of Pathfinder bother you, you owe it to yourself to go play another game for a while. You will have a great time, and learn things that you might take back to Pathfinder. But more likely, you'll find yourself in the mood for stuff you used to be bothered by (alignment, HP, whatever).
Our hobby is awesomely diverse for a reason. Somewhere out there is a game made by someone who shares your mechanical and thematic preferences, and they're desperate for your money. If you wait for Pathfinder to change to suit you, you'll be waiting a long time. Playing Pathfinder for Pathfinder and other games to get exactly what you want out of them is the best solution!
*fondles his Mouse Guard boxed set tenderly*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty much feel that way about lots of posts that say Eliminate X from Pathfinder 'cause I don't want it.
OK then find the game that suits you.
This does not apply to me as it's actually D&D and Pathfinder that I have the most trouble finding a group for, but, a common issue might be:
D&D and Pathfinder are the dominant rpgs on the market. It might be a hell of a lot easier to find a group for, say, "Pathfinder without X" than it would to find a group for another, lesser known game.
A new gaming store just opened up a few miles from my house and the owner had a massive stock of Pathfinder and 4e books. He asked what other games I liked.
He never heard of my favorite RPG, Savage Worlds, at all. When I mentioned World of Darkness he said, "Oh, you mean, like Wraith?" (He missed the entire New WoD somehow) He thought Shadowrun died in the 80s, and that Legend of the Five Rings was just a card game. Feng Shui, Godlike, The One Ring, BASH UE, blank stares.
This was a guy whose business is selling RPGs, and he only really knew D&D and Pathfinder, and had an inkling that some other games used to exist, but that they probably died in the 80s or 90s.
So, yeah, modifying the game people actually know might go better than suggesting a new game.
I think one reason for the alignment system is for sanctioned play organizations like PFS. That serves to keep everyone on the same page. If a player is allowed to kill on sight, steal, and so on, and still be treated as good, but another GM shuts that behavior then it will cause problems. I think home GM's and players have to decide for themselves how good "good" characters have to be.
(reasonable stuff)
So, yeah, modifying the game people actually know might go better than suggesting a new game.
It might go better, but I believe it is the responsibility of players who have certain preferences to support the games that cater to those preferences! Otherwise RPGs become a mono-culture, with everyone houseruling the crap out of one game until it is unrecognizable just because they rely on the name to draw in new players.
That's not good.
I say this all from the perspective of an RPG lifer who plays many different RPGs proudly. I know the Paizo staff well enough to know that they do too. Diversity is great for the hobby.
You're right, Pathfinder and D&D might be hard to depart from because of their name recognition. But I really identify with the rabble-rousers who b@%~! and moan about the rules, and I wish their energy could be directed constructively into the games that need them as players!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a guide to Pathfinder without alignment.
Use it well.
I don't hate alignment, but I generally don't use it. It just doesn't fit my GMing style. I like moral dissonance, insanity, well intentioned bad guys, and so on, and the alignment system doesn't handle that well, so I don't use it. If you don't like alignment, pull it from your game. If you do like it, use it. It's that simple.
If you don't like alignment, pull it from your game. If you do like it, use it. It's that simple.
Its pretty easy to do! Either way the game is not going to run THAT much differently.
Funny. People I know who treat alignment as relativist have very little issues with it. People who try to apply absolutes are the ones I find have the most issues.It was probably clumsy wording on my part. I mean that people who treat the alignments loosely rather than strictly will always bump into problems with it.
For example:
"The paladin was evil for killing that demon, because the demon only did what came natural to him."
"My paladin did a good act when he burned down that orphanage, there were a lot of goblin and orc babies in there."
I consider both of those examples to be people trying and failing to apply the alignment system strictly.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the alignment system disappear from Pathfinder. There are plenty of RPGs that deal with Good and Evil without the vagaries of an imposed ethics system like that which we have now (and how in the name of Gygax did he come up with this crap?).
The nice thing about getting rid of alignments: without Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or whatever it would be easier to see which players are just being d$~@#eads in their roleplaying (i.e. paladins, "evil" characters). We already know they're being jerks but at least they wouldn't be able to justify their actions by basing them on "I'm just behaving according to my alignment."
Plus, there would be a helluva lot less paladin/alignment threads on these boards.
I've come around to treating alignment as descriptive rather than proscriptive. Which is to say, your alignment describes how you have acted, it does not determine how you can act. Also, changing alignment is not a big deal in most cases (unless there is a special class restriction).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every character is Neutral unless they have an alignment subtype or aura.
Done.
Why isn't this thread over?
Nailed it, TOZ.
This is one of those issues that comes up on every RPG forum every once in a while that some people have a great deal of issue with, and a great deal of people don't see as a problem at all.
I personally have no problem with Law/Chaos as polar opposites in the game. People we play with seldom have an issue with playing their alignments. Does this mean that there is no player conflict? No, but it is organic,and comes from character's words and behavior, not a couple words on the character sheet.
I guess that we have less of an issue because it is exceedingly rare for someone to want to play an evil character, and when it happens, that person is keenly aware that he is in the minority, and has to mind his Ps and Qs with a primarily good party.
I notice that these threads tend to go hand in hand with threads kvetching about paladins, which makes me think that it all comes down to players not having as easy a time with evil PCs as they might hope.
I ditched alignments for my Unspeakable Futures games, and it more or less results in everyone playing chaotic neutral.
I don't have that problem. Then again, I structure my campaigns in such a way that good is actively encouraged.
I ditched alignments for my Unspeakable Futures games, and it more or less results in everyone playing chaotic neutral.
Isn't that what everyone really plays anyway? Even paladins (once you get past the baloney coming out of their mouths) are often motivated by purely selfish reasons (I will force my will on others by mandating everyone plays by my own personal code).
I really like the idea of playing a character with traits or quirks, instead of locking into an alignment. Instead of Lawful Good, I'd prefer to just write down "Honorable, Selfless, believes in fair play, hates bullies", and go with that. It simultaneously leaves a lot more room for playing the character without "being out of character", and at the same time you play closer to what you wanted without worrying about the "Lawful Good" alignment.
An alignment system works good for that it's meant for: interaction with the rules. If a player acts according to alignment rule X, then they are treated as X for purposes of magic and effects.
As a character roleplaying aid (guide, crutch, whatever), it really falls short. The idea that someone's "alignment" is so fixed or constant is comical to me. That evil assassin who murders for money might have a soft spot for abused orphaned children, as that was his own background. So what, his alignment is constantly shifting from Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good every time he happens to go all Robin Hood and helps out a child? And then back to Lawful Evil 10 minutes later when he assassinates that high ranking official?
d20 Modern had ditched alignments over "Allegiances". There was the option of taking a more ethical or moral philosophical outlook (focusing on a more lawful or good way of life). You've probably met some people like that (or seen them acting one on TV).
But the option of dedicating yourself to other things are available, like a particular Belief (religious folks), or Nation (I'm thinking military or FBI types here), or even a particular Organization (they call it the "outfit" now), or Person or Group (family first).
There was also the option of multiple allegiances (in order of importance to the character), or even no allegiances.
Being that it was a modern game, alignment spells were gone, so it really didn't affect play at all.
|
*shrugs*
I've played plenty of games without alignment systems; and the various generations of D&D/PF, with such systems... and a few game systems wherein the alignment systems were really arbitrary and broken (any Palladium game....).
Haven't really had any problems with the alignment systems. The trick is to figure out the character you want to play, what he/she is like-- personality, motivations, attitudes about life/society/the universe/faith or the lack thereof/etc.-- and THEN choose the alignment that most closely matches the whole package (don't worry if nothing fits perfectly, so long as your in-character behavior is more often in than outside the strict boundaries of that alignment's expected characteristics)...
Then just play your character as you conceived of him/her, and the alignment system's not a bother at all!
My experiences in games without alignment systems seems to be a little different than what's described here though-- with most of the groups I currently game with, if you did try to figure out what alignment our characters should be in those games-- most of them would turn out Neutral Good, the second largest alignment category would be Chaotic Good, and there would be a few characters who came up Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral over the years. Very few exceptions in the current groups.
Not coincidentally-- the groups I played D&D and now play Pathfinder with-- most of our characters are Neutral Good or Chaotic Good (and are played like those alignments should be)-- the only prominent exception in the last 6 years was the Paladin-Monk I played (under 3.5).
|
|
2nd thought to add:
In most of the D&D and now PF games that I've been in-- we could have just easily done away with the lawful-chaotic axis of alignment, and it would have made hardly any difference at all (except as short-hand notes for the GM on monster behavior), especially since there has been virtually no use at all of axiomatic or anarchic spells, magic items or powers by any of us.
My current groups would really miss the Good-Evil alignment axis in the game (as noted above, we all usually play good characters), because the 'holy' (AKA 'good' aligned) spells, powers and magic items get used a lot against our foes-- one can't begrudge the GM using the 'unholy' (AKA 'evil') counterparts against us either to make it more challenging. And there's DR for some critters, and lots of other effects, and 'detect evil' spells from us, 'detect good' from the enemy... and etc....
I still haven't found the Law/Neutral/Chaotic axis to be a problem... just saying we wouldn't miss it if it went away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not find the alignment system to be arbitrary or artificial.
What I do find is that the alignment system is defined by morals and ethics so the definitions are colored by the person trying to define the individual alignments.
There are set definitions for each alignment type.
In my experience the trouble arises when a person who in reality is some flavor of neutral tries to define what is good or evil. few people, deep down, like to think of themselves as not good. So a conflict arises, because it can't be that they aren't good, It's that the alignment system is broken. That good is too restrictive. That this act isn't really evil because they would do it in certain situations.
By historical definition Good is the hard path requiring constant vigilance. Evil is the easy path of unfettered self indulgence and damn the consequences. People fail sometimes at staying on the good path, but no one likes to admit it when it happens. So it's not their fault. It must be a fault in the alignment system that's pointing the contradiction out.
my 2 cents anyway.
I do not find the alignment system to be arbitrary or artificial.
What I do find is that the alignment system is defined by morals and ethics so the definitions are colored by the person trying to define the individual alignments.
There are set definitions for each alignment type.
In my experience the trouble arises when a person who in reality is some flavor of neutral tries to define what is good or evil. few people, deep down, like to think of themselves as not good. So a conflict arises, because it can't be that they aren't good, It's that the alignment system is broken. That good is too restrictive. That this act isn't really evil because they would do it in certain situations.By historical definition Good is the hard path requiring constant vigilance. Evil is the easy path of unfettered self indulgence and damn the consequences. People fail sometimes at staying on the good path, but no one likes to admit it when it happens. So it's not their fault. It must be a fault in the alignment system that's pointing the contradiction out.
my 2 cents anyway.
I generally tend to agree. As an addendum to this, I find much of the problems are removed by talking to your group ahead of time and making sure that you are all on the same page about what the Law and Chaos and the Good and Evil axis really mean. Especially for the purposes of the campaign you're about to embark on. This is no different really than having a joint character creation session, or having players talk about the type of game they want. It's no different from deciding what you want the themes of a story to be.
Players are often then less likely to feel like you (as the GM) are judging them when you inform them whether or not an action can or will change their alignment.
Isn't that what everyone really plays anyway? Even paladins (once you get past the baloney coming out of their mouths) are often motivated by purely selfish reasons (I will force my will on others by mandating everyone plays by my own personal code).
As sad a statement on the mindset of many players as I have seen.
What happened to people WANTING to be hero's, helping the weak, defending the just and doing good simply because it is what makes the world better?
The alignment system has not changed in 30+ years. The players attitudes apparently have.
A sad statement on the current batch of RPers, IMO, if greed is their primary motivation for everything.
Alignment is deeply rooted in the game, and it is the only "true" "role-playing" rule.
It is also really easy to downplay if it causes problems. Just use it as a descriptive trait, not a prescriptive rule.
I used to despise alignment. At some point I discovered:
If things like and and and and and and and and and and bother me that much, there are literally dozens of other great games that will address those issues in a different way. Pathfinder (and its predecessors) are the only games that address these things in a Pathfinder way. Sometimes I am in a mood for that classic experience.
Honestly, I can't really understand why people keep looking for a modernist RPG experience from a game that embraces its heritage so blatantly. The only reason I can think of is that people just don't know about all of the other RPGs that exist. Those games are great and should be played! Pathfinder should be played for Pathfinder's sake. If we turn it into a modernist RPG, we'll have lost something unique and beautiful in its own right.
I've played D&D/PF for about 10 years, and neither myself nor anyone I regularly game with ever so much as gave another game a second thought. And although some of the issues you mention plague me, I look to houserules rather than other games for solutions.
If you're willing, I'd be interested in a brief description of what games do the things you mentioned and how they do it.
I've played D&D/PF for about 10 years, and neither myself nor anyone I regularly game with ever so much as gave another game a second thought. And although some of the issues you mention plague me, I look to houserules rather than other games for solutions.
If you're willing, I'd be interested in a brief description of what games do the things you mentioned and how they do it.
I love house rules, possibly more than most. But you do need to be careful. If they're out of control they can kill a campaign by confusing everyone. Even if they're done well they can cut you off from the growth of the main game (think new feats, spells, etc.) which is something that players tend to value more than GMs, who are more prone to "fix" the game with houserules.
New games don't carry that problem. There's a lot to be said for a game group to be able to share an understanding of a published book without having to filter everything through house rules. Browsing a catalog of powers without a GM holding your hand is one of the great thrills of Pathfinder, for instance... but modify PF too much and you lose that advantage.
That's not very helpful, I know. I only know my own experiences, which barely cover a tenth of that.
What I can say is that most modern RPGs dispense with armor as a hit/miss factor and have it soak up damage, many are skill-based advancement (no levels) and most dress up "hit points" into a fixed scale with damage penalties. Skill-driven magic systems are in the majority, there is no Vancian hegemony outside of Pathfinder and D&D <3e. (heh, that made a little <3...)
If I had to pick my favorites, I'd say Shadowrun 3rd Edition (not too familiar with 4th), some parts of Silhouette (Dream Pod 9's engine... although it can lack depth) and my new favorite, the Mouse Guard RPG (completely innovative, all sacred cows slain, awesomeness. It's a lot better than Burning Wheel, which I am told it is based on... but much more polish).
But you scarcely need to leave the comfort of the d20 "kernel" ... I have no direct experience but I hear much about Conan, Iron Heroes, and other d20 variants that each tackle the list of grievances in their own way.
I have enough options that I when I play Pathfinder, it's always by choice. And without Vancian Magic, Hit Points, and Alignment, frankly, I'm not interested, because I would get a better experience leaving out levels and armor class and magic economics too. By that point, I'm considering refitting Mouse Guard instead.
Thanks :)
Mutants and Masterminds (Second Edition) was written in d20. It has the familiarity of the d20 process (roll a d20, add modifiers, meet a DC type of resolution), but mixes up a lot of everything else.
It favors a scaling damage/penalties system over hitpoints. Abilities (or Powers) are more freeform, letting a more "storybook" approach to things like "magic" if you wanted.
It's designed primarily as a comic book emulation, so a lot of the base powers and abilites (and their scale) are designed around it. If you look past that though, you can see a system that can be easily tweaked to let you do a lot of "non-D&D" fantasy options.
Less "modifying" and just a bit more "limit the options" away from non-fantasy stuff.
I look through that list of Pathfinder/D&D unique things (alignment, hitpoints, xmas tree effect, etc) and M&M would be a good choice if you wanted to step away from that while staying within the d20 concept.