Arachnofiend |
The nine intelligence guy can be a wizard though. There's nothing in the text that says otherwise. He just won't be as good at being a wizard as someone with a positive modifier.
In addition, the Wizard has something to gain from having higher intelligence because the stat is intrinsically tied to the class. There's no benefit to being "more lawful" for a Monk, the lawfulness is tied entirely to the fluff and has nothing to do with what the class actually does.
Arachnofiend |
I entirely disagree with Paladins necessarily having to be the shining beacons of good they are, by the way. I'd rather see a variety of oaths with a variety of different aims, with the Paladin functioning as a paragon of whatever system of morality s/he abides by. You don't have to be a righteous hero to be entirely devoted to your cause, and this would get rid of the silliness that is the Antipaladin.
TriOmegaZero |
You don't have to be a righteous hero to be entirely devoted to your cause, and this would get rid of the silliness that is the Antipaladin.
But for some people, you have to be a righteous hero to be a Paladin. So when you disagree with them having to be shining beacons of good, you are telling people that you disagree on what a Paladin fundamentally is. A Cleric can be entirely devoted to a cause, a Warpriest can, a Crusader can. But for some people, none of those can be Paladins merely by being devoted to a cause.
When you say 'I don't think a Paladin needs to be good' you are basically telling them 'I don't think water needs to have a hydrogen atom'.
TriOmegaZero |
Because opinions on a class in a game should be compared to immutable physical facts amirite
Should I compare it to telling Creationists that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago?
Note that to the Paladin enthusiasts I am speaking of, 'Paladins must be Lawful Good' is an immutable fact.
Arachnofiend |
Rynjin wrote:Because opinions on a class in a game should be compared to immutable physical facts amiriteShould I compare it to telling Creationists that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago?
...No, because then they're the ones with an objective falsehood. This is just a matter of opinion. I like mine better though because it opens up options and I think more options is generally better than less.
Deadbeat Doom |
LazarX |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it won't remove the chaotic stupid behaviors entirely, but it will make them less common because people won't have the alignment chart to influence them into trying a chaotic stupid character, they will instead feel freer to create a personality for their character that they won't have to shoehorn their behaviors into a straightjacket.
every time i interacted with alignment in my 15ish years of D&D, not counting 17 years of freeform i did at the sameish time, i have discovered that if you include alignment as a mechanic or even a detail on a character sheet, or the alignment chart as a reference, that players are bound to misinterpret that alignment and shoehorn themselves to fit their mispercieved vision of that alignment as best they can
which is why i would rather players create their own personality from scratch than try to use 2 words as a base, so you don't have something encouraging you to play chaotic stupid and other disruptive alignments.
Umbriere if you're looking to remove alignment from your game, Arcana Evolved is D20 without alignments, It's essentially what you're looking for. It even has a replacement for Paladins that's exactly what you're looking for.
If you're crusading for Paizo to remove alignment from the game system, I suggest you read up on your Cervantes.
Pan |
TriOmegaZero wrote:...No, because then they're the ones with an objective falsehood. This is just a matter of opinion. I like mine better though because it opens up options and I think more options is generally better than less.Rynjin wrote:Because opinions on a class in a game should be compared to immutable physical facts amiriteShould I compare it to telling Creationists that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago?
So the fighter, cleric, oracle, inquisitor, warpriest, etc are not options? Hell you can multiclass any combo and there are still prestige classes to consider. Paladins being LG only doesnt limit options as you think it does.
Simon Legrande |
TriOmegaZero wrote:...No, because then they're the ones with an objective falsehood. This is just a matter of opinion. I like mine better though because it opens up options and I think more options is generally better than less.Rynjin wrote:Because opinions on a class in a game should be compared to immutable physical facts amiriteShould I compare it to telling Creationists that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago?
To a creationist, your belief that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago is just a matter of opinion. When comparing beliefs, claiming that yours is objectively correct is generally a bad idea.
Tequila Sunrise |
I mean to be a monk you just wait for a level and starting adding monk abilities right? There is no need to have ever set foot in a monastery. There is no need to be the type of person that would train for month/years in an extremely regimented way to achieve amazing feats of mind and body?
You mean like wizards need to be super disciplined to learn how to bend universal forces to their wills and achieve feats that monks can only dream of, and how no character can simply take a level of wizard without being Lawful and spending years studying under a tutor?
Oh wait, my spider sense is telling me that there's a big ol' double standard somewhere nearby...
Arachnofiend |
The Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, and Warpriest are all different from the Paladin in terms of what they do. The Warpriest was obviously designed as a non-Lawful Good Paladin though, so I appreciate it.
Arachnofiend wrote:To a creationist, your belief that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago is just a matter of opinion. When comparing beliefs, claiming that yours is objectively correct is generally a bad idea.TriOmegaZero wrote:...No, because then they're the ones with an objective falsehood. This is just a matter of opinion. I like mine better though because it opens up options and I think more options is generally better than less.Rynjin wrote:Because opinions on a class in a game should be compared to immutable physical facts amiriteShould I compare it to telling Creationists that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago?
*sigh* This is a terrible place for a religious debate, but the Earth being quite a bit older than a few thousand years is an objective fact. "There is/isn't a god" is still little more than a matter of opinion that is more the territory of philosophy than science, though.
Simon Legrande |
That doesn't stop the 9Int guy from taking a level in wizard. It just means he can't cast spells normally.
Funny story:
A couple weeks ago it was my dad's turn to DM. We were a 7th level party and he made the BBEG at the end of his portion a 20th level wizard ... with a 14 Int. The wizard knew he wasn't smart enough to cast any good spells so he made pacts with the shadow realm to gain other powers to make up for it. He was totally inept as a wizard, but we still had to run away after slowing their plans down a bit.
Back to you regularly scheduled conversation.
Simon Legrande |
*sigh* This is a terrible place for a religious debate, but the Earth being quite a bit older than a few thousand years is an objective fact. "There is/isn't a god" is still little more than a matter of opinion that is more the territory of philosophy than science, though.
You and I know that, but to a creationist it isn't an objective fact no matter how much proof you come with. They believe without question that the Earth is ~6000 years old. Your claims of "objective fact" are totally meaningless when pushed up against someone's beliefs.
Simon Legrande |
Geflin Graysoul wrote:I mean to be a monk you just wait for a level and starting adding monk abilities right? There is no need to have ever set foot in a monastery. There is no need to be the type of person that would train for month/years in an extremely regimented way to achieve amazing feats of mind and body?You mean like wizards need to be super disciplined to learn how to bend universal forces to their wills and achieve feats that monks can only dream of, and how no character can simply take a level of wizard without being Lawful and spending years studying under a tutor?
Oh wait, my spider sense is telling me that there's a big ol' double standard somewhere nearby...
You mean the wizard who has to pretty much give up all hope of ever being able to compete martially? Are you trying to say that there is nothing a monk can do that a wizard can't?
Simon Legrande |
I believe what he's saying is that the amount of training and discipline required to punch things hard is probably less than that required to reshape the universe at your will.
I'm not sure I agree with that either. A monk has his number of attacks and the amount of damage they do increase steadily over levels regardless of his physical stats. Sure he's more effective with high stats, but they aren't necessary for the class features. A wizard with low Int doesn't get to access the best of his abilities.
A monk's special abilities are always on, a wizard's are limited and get depleted as they get used. A monk gets SR, DR, immunity to disease, the ability to move fast and jump far, the ability to fall incredible distances, the ability to stop aging. Can a wizard do those things? How many times per day and for how long?
EDIT: Although if you believe that 'punch things hard' is all monks do, then the comparison shouldn't even be made to begin with.
LazarX |
TriOmegaZero wrote:That doesn't stop the 9Int guy from taking a level in wizard. It just means he can't cast spells normally.Sorta like being a fallen paladin?
Not really. The fallen Paladin was a Paladin once. The 9 Int Wizard would never have cast a spell in his life.
gnoams |
You don't believe in the reality of evil?
:/ ?
Or evil in a game with diabolically (and worse, diabolic can be negotiated with) evil beings?
You don't think a spell should be able to detect beings of utter darkness, or identify the evil deep in the souls of the most depraved hiding like wolves amongst the sheep?
When a spell detects such darkness and allegiance to evil forces and its twisted ideals, you don't think the players should be killing that evil creature?
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.
No, I do not believe in the reality of "evil." Reality is not black and white.
As a storytelling mechanism it is a well used and understood device. Good vs Evil, demons and angels etc are all great for high unrealistic fantasy. It makes things simple. And that's why alignment is in the game. Its designed to be simple fantasy, brainless fun playing the hero smashing the bad guys and since they're all "evil," nobody has to feel bad about it.If you have any interest in exploring real emotions and moral dilemmas, you have to throw out the alignment system. Sometimes hulk smash puny bad guys is fun, and alignment lends itself well to that style of play. As is, if I'm looking for serious roleplaying, I use a different game.
I dislike detection spells in general. Any spell that bypasses actual role-playing, talking, investigating is kind of lame. For example, there's a really fun pfs scenario where you talk to this guy who is really a demon in disguise. There's a whole page on roleplaying him, and hints he drops for players to realize what he is. Or the paladin detects evil and you miss out on that entire encounter.
Grey Lensman |
If you have any interest in exploring real emotions and moral dilemmas, you have to throw out the alignment system. Sometimes hulk smash puny bad guys is fun, and alignment lends itself well to that style of play. As is, if I'm looking for serious roleplaying, I use a different game.
I'm going to disagree with this. If you remember that alignment is a guideline and not a straightjacket most problems resolve themselves. Throw in a few evil people that the party just can't kill (that sleazy merchant who always tries his best to cheat, the loyal-but-immoral advisor to the throne who loves The Prince but wishes the author was a little bit more ruthless, ect.) and the divinations lose a lot of their game-breaking ability.
RDM42 |
DM Under The Bridge wrote:You don't believe in the reality of evil?
:/ ?
Or evil in a game with diabolically (and worse, diabolic can be negotiated with) evil beings?
You don't think a spell should be able to detect beings of utter darkness, or identify the evil deep in the souls of the most depraved hiding like wolves amongst the sheep?
When a spell detects such darkness and allegiance to evil forces and its twisted ideals, you don't think the players should be killing that evil creature?
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.
No, I do not believe in the reality of "evil." Reality is not black and white.
As a storytelling mechanism it is a well used and understood device. Good vs Evil, demons and angels etc are all great for high unrealistic fantasy. It makes things simple. And that's why alignment is in the game. Its designed to be simple fantasy, brainless fun playing the hero smashing the bad guys and since they're all "evil," nobody has to feel bad about it.
If you have any interest in exploring real emotions and moral dilemmas, you have to throw out the alignment system. Sometimes hulk smash puny bad guys is fun, and alignment lends itself well to that style of play. As is, if I'm looking for serious roleplaying, I use a different game.I dislike detection spells in general. Any spell that bypasses actual role-playing, talking, investigating is kind of lame. For example, there's a really fun pfs scenario where you talk to this guy who is really a demon in disguise. There's a whole page on roleplaying him, and hints he drops for players to realize what he is. Or the paladin detects evil and you miss out on that entire encounter.
Or the demon uses a first or second level spell. And detecting as evil doesn't make someone a demon.
Rob Godfrey |
Arachnofiend wrote:So the fighter, cleric, oracle, inquisitor, warpriest, etc are not options? Hell you can multiclass any combo and there are still prestige classes to consider. Paladins being LG only doesnt limit options as you think it does.TriOmegaZero wrote:...No, because then they're the ones with an objective falsehood. This is just a matter of opinion. I like mine better though because it opens up options and I think more options is generally better than less.Rynjin wrote:Because opinions on a class in a game should be compared to immutable physical facts amiriteShould I compare it to telling Creationists that the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago?
Prestige classes are a sick joke.
Tequila Sunrise |
I believe what he's saying is that the amount of training and discipline required to punch things hard is probably less than that required to reshape the universe at your will.
Bingo!
Arachnofiend wrote:I believe what he's saying is that the amount of training and discipline required to punch things hard is probably less than that required to reshape the universe at your will.I'm not sure I agree with that either. A monk has his number of attacks and the amount of damage they do increase steadily over levels regardless of his physical stats. Sure he's more effective with high stats, but they aren't necessary for the class features. A wizard with low Int doesn't get to access the best of his abilities.
A monk's special abilities are always on, a wizard's are limited and get depleted as they get used. A monk gets SR, DR, immunity to disease, the ability to move fast and jump far, the ability to fall incredible distances, the ability to stop aging. Can a wizard do those things? How many times per day and for how long?
So you're comparing two kinds of magic -- wizard spells and monk traits -- and making a definitive judgment that one requires more discipline than the other. And not just a little more discipline; so much more discipline that one must be disciplined with a capital L, while the other can be as undisciplined as he or she likes. And you're making this judgment about two kinds of magic based on...what, exactly?
For the record, yes I do think that the wizard's one-off spells require more discipline than the monk's random assortment of magical traits. The monk learns a few tricks that he sticks to forever, while the wizard not only learns more tricks, but he learns how to adapt a nigh-endless assortment of tricks to his needs. It's like the difference between grade school and college/university: one teaches what to think, and the other teaches you how to think.
But hey, that's just my opinion -- just as it's my opinion that nobody should be forced into any alignment because of cheesy karate action flick stereotypes.
DM_aka_Dudemeister |
The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.
A monk who sees how swashbucklers and Duelists do their thing and leaves the monastery to test his skills against them. That's not chaotic, that's someone wanting to test their discipline against such flashy styles. If they are so impressed later on they multiclass as a swashbuckler or take the duelist prestige class the character might become famous as a founder of a new style. He can still be considered lawful, because disciplines grow and change. Or perhaps he does start embracing chaos, and then retrains his monk levels as swashbuckler or brawler levels, since he no longer can maintain the mental discipline but still knows the physical moves but has lost the mental discipline.
The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.
Create Mr. Pitt |
The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.
A monk who sees how swashbucklers and Duelists do their thing and leaves the monastery to test his skills against them. That's not chaotic, that's someone wanting to test their discipline against such flashy styles. If they are so impressed later on they multiclass as a swashbuckler or take the duelist prestige class the character might become famous as a founder of a new style. He can still be considered lawful, because disciplines grow and change. Or perhaps he does start embracing chaos, and then retrains his monk levels as swashbuckler or brawler levels, since he no longer can maintain the mental discipline but still knows the physical moves but has lost the mental discipline.The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.
No one is arguing that narrative shouldn't inform the rules. Alignment is a completely unrealistic way to look at a world and encourages metagaming weirdness. It helps neither role playing nor mechanics. People's actions should have real world consequences to be sure, but alignment is just a pointless metafiction.
DM_aka_Dudemeister |
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:No one is arguing that narrative shouldn't inform the rules. Alignment is a completely unrealistic way to look at a world and encourages metagaming weirdness. It helps neither role playing nor mechanics. People's actions should have real world consequences to be sure, but alignment is just a pointless metafiction.The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.
A monk who sees how swashbucklers and Duelists do their thing and leaves the monastery to test his skills against them. That's not chaotic, that's someone wanting to test their discipline against such flashy styles. If they are so impressed later on they multiclass as a swashbuckler or take the duelist prestige class the character might become famous as a founder of a new style. He can still be considered lawful, because disciplines grow and change. Or perhaps he does start embracing chaos, and then retrains his monk levels as swashbuckler or brawler levels, since he no longer can maintain the mental discipline but still knows the physical moves but has lost the mental discipline.The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.
Alignment isn't about realism, it's about idealism. It's descriptive, it gives players a good starting point when gauging how they'll role play. It isn't the whole of the thing, characters are more complicated than that. They'll fall short of their ideals sometimes.
Chaotic Neutral, Jack Sparrow sometimes does selfless things (Good acts) much to his own annoyance.Umbriere Moonwhisper |
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:No one is arguing that narrative shouldn't inform the rules. Alignment is a completely unrealistic way to look at a world and encourages metagaming weirdness. It helps neither role playing nor mechanics. People's actions should have real world consequences to be sure, but alignment is just a pointless metafiction.The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.
A monk who sees how swashbucklers and Duelists do their thing and leaves the monastery to test his skills against them. That's not chaotic, that's someone wanting to test their discipline against such flashy styles. If they are so impressed later on they multiclass as a swashbuckler or take the duelist prestige class the character might become famous as a founder of a new style. He can still be considered lawful, because disciplines grow and change. Or perhaps he does start embracing chaos, and then retrains his monk levels as swashbuckler or brawler levels, since he no longer can maintain the mental discipline but still knows the physical moves but has lost the mental discipline.The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.
the roleplay consquences for your actions should generally be roleplay oriented or fitting to the NPCs, rather than a DM stripping your powers because you didn't do what the book told you to.
if a cleric abuses his divine power and sullies a gods reputation, the god shouldn't simply strip the cleric's power, but send his followers to apprehend the priest whom violates his code. maybe cultists and paladins chase the priest for violating low level infractures, but after the priest grows in power from his infractions, the god would eventually send his extraplanar servants to apprehend the priest
a god isn't simply going to care to depower a misguided ex follower that some pawn of his can eliminate for him, and well, gods have varying tiers of pawns, plus i like the idea that deities have limits to what they can do in the natural world. send messages to a mortal proxy by means of the equivalent to a phonecall or instant message? sure, send a handful of extraplanar servants to fight a more dangerous abuser? sure, at a great cost to the god's energy and power. i don't like the idea that deities are all powerful, completely invincible and all knowing. a lot of the polytheistic pantheons had gods that could at least be defeated or deceived. black and white morality only really supports one playstyle i can think of, kicking the dungeon door down and slaughtering the creatures that detect as evil without remorse because their species are incapable of good. i like to include such things as non-evil demons or non-good angels as a classic means to throw people off the murder track.
RDM42 |
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:No one is arguing that narrative shouldn't inform the rules. Alignment is a completely unrealistic way to look at a world and encourages metagaming weirdness. It helps neither role playing nor mechanics. People's actions should have real world consequences to be sure, but alignment is just a pointless metafiction.The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.
A monk who sees how swashbucklers and Duelists do their thing and leaves the monastery to test his skills against them. That's not chaotic, that's someone wanting to test their discipline against such flashy styles. If they are so impressed later on they multiclass as a swashbuckler or take the duelist prestige class the character might become famous as a founder of a new style. He can still be considered lawful, because disciplines grow and change. Or perhaps he does start embracing chaos, and then retrains his monk levels as swashbuckler or brawler levels, since he no longer can maintain the mental discipline but still knows the physical moves but has lost the mental discipline.The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.
the roleplay consquences for your actions should generally be roleplay oriented or fitting to the NPCs, rather than a DM stripping your powers because you didn't do what the book told you to.
if a cleric abuses his divine power and sullies a gods reputation, the god shouldn't simply strip the cleric's power, but send his followers to apprehend the priest whom violates his code. maybe cultists and paladins chase the priest for violating low level infractures, but after the priest grows in power from his infractions, the god would eventually send his extraplanar servants to apprehend the priest
a god isn't simply going to care to depower a misguided ex follower that some pawn of his can eliminate for him,...
So you are saying that the cleric or paladin should be able to FORCE the god to grant him spells? Really?
Umbriere Moonwhisper |
So you are saying that the cleric or paladin should be able to FORCE the god to grant him spells? Really?
more like the cleric's or paladin's spells shouldn't have come from the god's power in the first place, but from either a ritual or special training procedures unique to the order and that the god's influence play a much smaller role.
it's not that the god in this case is granting the cleric or paladin his powers, it's that the cleric or paladin earned his powers be going through a ritual and undergoing a specific training regimen 4E style and because the god never gave the powers in the first place, the god has nothing he can truly revoke.
in other words, gods should have a whole lot less influence on the setting, and even in a setting where gods can depower clerics, i'm sure the god's enemy or rival god is powering the cleric in the same way to appear seamless. or maybe the cleric learned a way to steal a portion of the god's power or cheat him out of it in a way the god doesn't realize.
Tequila Sunrise |
The argument that narrative choices shouldn't effect game mechanics seems absurd to me. These things shouldn't exist independently of each other.
And yet they frequently do in PF, barring DM intervention.
The narrative informs the rules, and the rules inform the narrative. Alignment is fine.
This strawman argument would almost work in a game where every class had an alignment restrictions based on cheesy trope logic. If bards had to be chaotic because Restless Vagabond Free Love Musician, and fighters had to be non-chaotic because everyone needs some discipline to be that skilled, and rogues had to be non-good because I Can Haz Loot LoLs, and wizards had to be lawful because PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER requires either Robin Williams or more discipline in one's little pinky finger than most people have in their entire being.
At least in such a game you could make an argument about trope consistency. But as PF is, some classes are weirdly ethically monolithic because Gygax and Arneson, while others allow players free creative reign to ya know...role play.
RDM42 |
RDM42 wrote:So you are saying that the cleric or paladin should be able to FORCE the god to grant him spells? Really?more like the cleric's or paladin's spells shouldn't have come from the god's power in the first place, but from either a ritual or special training procedures unique to the order and that the god's influence play a much smaller role.
it's not that the god in this case is granting the cleric or paladin his powers, it's that the cleric or paladin earned his powers be going through a ritual and undergoing a specific training regimen 4E style and because the god never gave the powers in the first place, the god has nothing he can truly revoke.
in other words, gods should have a whole lot less influence on the setting, and even in a setting where gods can depower clerics, i'm sure the god's enemy or rival god is powering the cleric in the same way to appear seamless. or maybe the cleric learned a way to steal a portion of the god's power or cheat him out of it in a way the god doesn't realize.
Heaven forbid the cleric or paladins actions have serious consequences.
Why is it that the cleric should be able to violate his god's tenants without losing his abilities and why exactly does that make for a better world?
Umbriere Moonwhisper |
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:RDM42 wrote:So you are saying that the cleric or paladin should be able to FORCE the god to grant him spells? Really?more like the cleric's or paladin's spells shouldn't have come from the god's power in the first place, but from either a ritual or special training procedures unique to the order and that the god's influence play a much smaller role.
it's not that the god in this case is granting the cleric or paladin his powers, it's that the cleric or paladin earned his powers be going through a ritual and undergoing a specific training regimen 4E style and because the god never gave the powers in the first place, the god has nothing he can truly revoke.
in other words, gods should have a whole lot less influence on the setting, and even in a setting where gods can depower clerics, i'm sure the god's enemy or rival god is powering the cleric in the same way to appear seamless. or maybe the cleric learned a way to steal a portion of the god's power or cheat him out of it in a way the god doesn't realize.
Heaven forbid the cleric or paladins actions have serious consequences.
Why is it that the cleric should be able to violate his god's tenants without losing his abilities and why exactly does that make for a better world?
it's not that it makes for a better world, but makes one where players aren't inclined to seek loopholes around their restrictions to justify keeping their powers. which is why i like the 4E method of clerics drawing their power from the combination of an initiation ritual and a montage of exclusive training that focuses around the focus of that religious branch, rather than the BS that you draw your powers from some all powerful extradimensional being whom you never see, but always shouts orders. stripping away character powers permanently does not make a good character design, only an abusable one.
plus, there are plenty of stories, especially in the middle east, of clever third sons whom were beleived to be worthless till they outsmarted, cheated and decieved a godlike being to gain irrevokeable access to their power. Aladdin isn't the only one of them, or another idea, is to base a clerics power off of their faith and belief, rather than gaining it because a god gives them to you. essentially, i want divine intervention to be as minimal as possible except of characters that have a "God's Favored" type of feat. and because of this, the Ritual and Training idea, is the best way to justify why clerics retain their powers after displeasing their god. which requires a drastically different setting that resolves divine magic differently.
i can't stand the idea that a characters hard earned class features can be revoked by the dungeon master at any moment. if a god is angry, the god should send level appropriate enemies to deal with the cleric, using their divine military resources as appropriate. stripping powers is a lousy consequence that would merely lead to the player being required to make a new character, sending agents of the faith out to apprehend the herectic and sending an inquisition to capture, interrogate and convert them, would be a more fitting consequence. not that an entire army would attack this character at once, but have say, squads of inquisitors whom see the character as a threat in any appropriate settlement whom may have a chance to stop the unorthodox cleric and give the cleric a chance to bypass them. in other words, limit a deities power over the world.
Umbriere Moonwhisper |
So, because some players try to cheat remove the rules?
and finding an excuse to strip away a cleric or paladins powers for simply having an unorthodox view of their gods traditions and a different alignment that requires them to explore this unorthdox view is a dick move.
some unorthodox views may be drastically different but still legitimate interpretations of a god's beleifs and a god shouldn't care about that actions of one small fish in his sea of followers. in fact, a god is too busy paying too much attention to more important things to be even bothered to depower a cleric for having an unorthodox but still legitimate interpretation. a lawful evil paladin of the lawful neutral god of self perfection whom smites the idiotic and oblivious for not using the full potential of their brain, is still following the ideals of his god, self perfection, it's just he is punishing those whom he doesn't beleive to fit that ideal.
Jaelithe |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RDM42 wrote:So you are saying that the cleric or paladin should be able to FORCE the god to grant him spells? Really?more like the cleric's or paladin's spells shouldn't have come from the god's power in the first place, but from either a ritual or special training procedures unique to the order and that the god's influence play a much smaller role.
Just curious: From where do the ritual, special training and order get the power they dole out? What is its source?
RDM42 |
RDM42 wrote:So, because some players try to cheat remove the rules?
and finding an excuse to strip away a cleric or paladins powers for simply having an unorthodox view of their gods traditions and a different alignment that requires them to explore this unorthdox view is a dick move.
some unorthodox views may be drastically different but still legitimate interpretations of a god's beleifs and a god shouldn't care about that actions of one small fish in his sea of followers. in fact, a god is too busy paying too much attention to more important things to be even bothered to depower a cleric for having an unorthodox but still legitimate interpretation. a lawful evil paladin of the lawful neutral god of self perfection whom smites the idiotic and oblivious for not using the full potential of their brain, is still following the ideals of his god, self perfection, it's just he is punishing those whom he doesn't beleive to fit that ideal.
Except he is allowing his greed and baser instincts to interfere with his quest for self-perfection.
And someone granted powers in a deities name ceases to be a small fish, and is quite different from a mundane worshipper. The presence of your power implies he acts in that god's name.
born_of_fire |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the alignment issues seem to stem from the possibility of divine characters having their powers stripped from them but, if a character doesn't want to follow to basic tenets of their chosen faith, why is that character a cleric, inquisitor or paladin in the first place? Alignments are not a strait-jacket for divine characters because they share the values and beliefs of the god they worship and those values and beliefs are what determined their alignment in the first place. Honest people aren't clerics of the god of lies, generous people aren't clerics of the god of greed, murderers aren't clerics of the god of life etc. For those occasions when there is no god that matches a character's values and beliefs, there is the option of adhering to philosophies without paying homage to a specific god instead.
If, despite all the options available to accomodate divine characters, a player remains unable to play one without the DM punishing them for alignment deviations, then I suggest that alignment and the nature of the divine classes are not the problem; the desire to play a character without a consistent philosophy is. Alignment shouldn't be making your character do anything they don't already want to do and I believe you have selected the wrong alignment for your character if you are feeling constrained by it.
I don't think using the alignment system cripples roleplay as some have suggested; I think it simply reveals who the crippled roleplayers are--the ones who can't imagine consistent motivations for their character or the ones who choose an alignment simply to qualify for cool stuff etc.
Umbriere Moonwhisper |
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:Just curious: From where do the ritual, special training and order get the power they dole out? What is its source?RDM42 wrote:So you are saying that the cleric or paladin should be able to FORCE the god to grant him spells? Really?more like the cleric's or paladin's spells shouldn't have come from the god's power in the first place, but from either a ritual or special training procedures unique to the order and that the god's influence play a much smaller role.
the power for all spellcasters is internal, whether arcane, divine or psionic, and the act of tapping into this power is closer to a science, meaning the people performing the traditional rituals, aren't giving you power, they are teaching you their techniques you can use to tap into your own power, akin to recording which techniques work in a complex science. divine casters, though they have different general traditions, tend to be less willing to call this science a science, and gods don't really care, because magic is a mortal invention, and the gods themselves, cannot interact with the natural world except by proxy. and stronger proxies can siphon great power from the gods. there are creatures whom can teach you the basics of harnessing this inner power in a more malicious manner, but generally those creatures expect some kind of cost.
the ritual is simply a college initiation kinda thing similar to what fraternities do to haze their new pledges, and the special training is what really matters, not that it is truly neccessary, it is just a faster way to control your own inner power. some monks refer to it a chi, some wizards refer to it as mana, and some refer to it by a variety of other names, but everyone possesses it, it's just that not everybody knows how to use it. you can teach yourself, it just takes a bit longer.
DM_aka_Dudemeister |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:I've never removed a player's powers without the player first asking me to as part of the character's story. Roleplayed by acting out of alignment.But if a player forced your hand with a grossly inappropriate act, would you pull the trigger?
How does a player commit any grossly inappropriate act without some kind of discussion about the possible consequences beforehand? As a GM I'm not going to say: "Yes, you kill some babies, now you're evil and lose your powers GOTCHA!"
Instead we'll discuss what possible consequences might be, and if the player wants to follow through on it. Maybe it ends up being something he thinks about, and perhaps seeks out a cleric in town afterwards for thinking wrathful thoughts. Maybe he goes through with it, because he has an intelligence of 9, and misinterpreted his deity's stance on whatever causes him to fall, moving one or two steps away from his current alignment and perhaps losing his deity's power, AFTER being made aware that might very well be the consequence for his action. Then he gets to roleplay either getting back into his deity's good graces, or perhaps the crisis of faith forces him to retrain his class, or choose a deity more closely aligned with his worldview.
There's nothing broken about alignment here.
There is something broken about an adversarial relationship between players and GMs.
Umbriere Moonwhisper |
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:I've never removed a player's powers without the player first asking me to as part of the character's story. Roleplayed by acting out of alignment.But if a player forced your hand with a grossly inappropriate act, would you pull the trigger?
i wouldn't pull the trigger unless the player agreed to it and suggested it out of game for storyline reasons. and if the player did, i would allow them to retrain their character without cost into something more fitting from the ground up, or allow them to choose a god with looser moral restrictions and keep the stuff they got from their old god, but granted by their new god they don't realize is a new god. for example, Asmodeus decieving a former priest of Sarenrae by pretending to be Sarenrae and granting him all the benefits as if he were still a cleric of Sarenrae, despite Asmodeus being his new god behind the scenes without him knowing, and never revealing, trying to make the transition as seamless as possible.
mechanically, he would be a non-good cleric of Sarenrae with all his powers intact, but what he doesn't realize, is his powers come from Asmodeus and those clerics of "Asmodeus" he was harming were really paladins of "Sarenrae" he was deluded by Asmodeus' deception into beleiving were "Asmodean." due to divine illusion, she still functions a neutral good cleric of Saranerae skillset wise, despite being empowered by asmodeus and really being lawful evil, but she detects as neutral good, and has the healing and sun domains, it is just they work differently by damaging those she percieves as undead as if they were undead and healing those she percieves as living as if they were living, even if both cases were living.
in fact, a similar case could be made for a paladin of "Iomedae" whom doesn't realize that despite her paladin powers as if she were good, is being decieved by "lolth" into thinking her fellow "paladins" are really blackguards of "lollth" when really, they are Ioemedean paladins and she is really a paladin of "lolth" smiting her former comerades before lolth decieved her and made the transition as seamless as possible through illusion. she still has the divine grace, lay on hands and the like, it's just they interact differently than they once did by affecting what she beleives to be her foes but were once her allies
Umbriere Moonwhisper |
Jaelithe wrote:DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:I've never removed a player's powers without the player first asking me to as part of the character's story. Roleplayed by acting out of alignment.But if a player forced your hand with a grossly inappropriate act, would you pull the trigger?How does a player commit any grossly inappropriate act without some kind of discussion about the possible consequences beforehand? As a GM I'm not going to say: "Yes, you kill some babies, now you're evil and lose your powers GOTCHA!"
Instead we'll discuss what possible consequences might be, and if the player wants to follow through on it. Maybe it ends up being something he thinks about, and perhaps seeks out a cleric in town afterwards for thinking wrathful thoughts. Maybe he goes through with it, because he has an intelligence of 9, and misinterpreted his deity's stance on whatever causes him to fall, moving one or two steps away from his current alignment and perhaps losing his deity's power, AFTER being made aware that might very well be the consequence for his action. Then he gets to roleplay either getting back into his deity's good graces, or perhaps the crisis of faith forces him to retrain his class, or choose a deity more closely aligned with his worldview.
There's nothing broken about alignment here.
There is something broken about an adversarial relationship between players and GMs.
essentially what i would do too. but despite the new deity, i would allow him the choice of preserving the powers of his old deity upon the character sheet with his new deity, so he doesn't have to go through 10 hours of rebuilding, because the more appropriate deity would want a seamless transition, which means they wouldn't want excessive changing of domains or proficiencies that may make certain feats illegal.