Alignment, the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment, as we know it in D&D and its Descendants, Pathfinder and a Variety of Retroclones, is an attempt to capture an individuals personality, behaviors, actions and intent into a 2 word summary that just doesn't work for everything. and well, because alignment exists as a mechanic, things have to be constructed to reinforce this monsters existence, classed based behavior restrictions, outsiders that only appear to generally be of a certain alignment, alignment debates, and well, the illegitimate children of alignment debates, paladin, cleric and assassin threads. if we are to advance into our next edition later on, we need to review whether or not these two words are really important to defining our character, or serve as a straightjacket for the hyper restrictive dungeon master to restrict our behaviors. in fact, a lot of cases, it seems alignment is kept due to tradition, and classes like paladin, monk, barbarian and assassin only seem to be built with alignment restrictions in mind as a means to encourage a specific set of behaviors that may or may not fit well with the group on an otherwise balanced set of mechanics or as a means to outright force players to behave a certain way to keep their class features.

because the concept of alignment exists within the game, we have to include mechanics focused around it. and because it exists, we have to have reasons to justify it. would Pathfinder 2E or any D20 Derivative really be that problematic if alignment didn't exist at all as a means to encourage certain behaviors? would it really be an issue if certain alignment based effects just didn't exist. i mean, they are already kind of useless except as a means for people to take classes with more constricting behavioral restrictions and find loopholes to work around those restrictions, such as the great many paladins i experienced in 3 30-40something groups since 2,000 whom despite having generally different players, all had the convenient idea of taking Profession (Mushroom Harvester) so they could not hinder the party while the other members did their questionable deed for the greater good.

if we removed alignment both as a game mechanic and a quantifiable concept, removed behavioral restrictions as a game mechanic or balancing factor, think of how many things we can remove, we can remove the stupid evil guy whom kills peasants and kicks puppies for the lulz, we can remove the chaotic stupid guy whom is completely random, we can remove the lawful stupid player whom feels he has to be the epitome of law, and we can remove the stupid good pacifist whom hinders the party and finally, we can remove the thief whom robs his allies and the paladin whom hinders their more pragmatic and practical party by having to give the demonic horde a fair fight. by removing the concept of showhorning everything into alignment, we can come up with proper and more complex personalities that aren't trying to meet the requirements of their class and we can truly have alignment ambiguous characters. alignment is a crutch compared to actually giving a character a personality, and alignment seems a bit one dimensional. i mean in most tabletop RPGs with very few exceptions i can recall, you generally spend a lot of time on the reptitive process of raiding a settlement, killing a group of intelligent beings and taking their stuff as your ill gotten but hard earned spoils.

the problem with alignment, is it leads to a black and white kinda thing, and black and white is a bit of an outdated view compared to the modern shades of grey. classes like paladin and assassin, still follow the black and white model, and i would love to see them updated to fit the shades of grey a lot of modern RPGs are following. not the best example of Shades of Grey, but World of Warcraft, you have 2 Greyish factions warring against each other while still campaigning against whatever the primary evil of the expansion might be. the Alliance and Horde, both have their share of relatively evil races, the humans of the Alliance whom like to colonize and enslave everything, and have paladins whom help them colonize and enslave, a lawful evil principle, and the horde's blood elves, whose paladins vowed vengeance on the humans whom betrayed them after being taught elven magic, and sought to slay the elves whom betrayed them, and well, even if Vengeance isn't evil, it sure as heck doesn't fit good. and well both human and blood elf paladins in that game are known to lie, cheat and even steal because the Naaru care not what you do as long as you fight off the scourge and the burning legion as well as the other evils that plague the world. we could learn from that example. if WoW paladins can be shades of Grey, or in the humans of Stormwind case, even lawful evil, and still being interesting in a non-Mary Sue Roland way or can be Chaotic Good in the case of the blood elves. then we can learn that alignment has no real place and shouldn't be shoehorned in.

alignment leads to debates, leads to headaches, leads to "is this evil?" or "how can i force this paladin to fall in a contrived no-win scenario?" threads. we can reduce these threads greatly with the next edition of Pathfinder if we remove the concept of alignment entirely and make a characters actions, a reflection of the characters personality and not what a 2 word straightjacket says on their sheet that they have to maintain if they want to keep their class features. it also leads to a lot of interesting plots you can't use in the standard rules due to the existence of detect evil and other alignment based spells or even divinations. but divinations belong to another topic. pretty hard to have a story about a corrupt high priest dedicated to an otherwise good aligned god if you have to worry about alignment restrictions, both due to detect evil, and due to the concept of alignment in general.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So let me get this straight, removing a few words for a character sheet is going to stop immature players from playing characters that follow the Chaotic Stupid trope...? Also, I didn't realize that having to write those two words on my character sheet was going to prevent me from developing a personality for them... Who knew! /Sarcasm

But seriously, I couldn't agree LESS with this thread if I possibly tried, as a player or a DM.

As a DM, I try my best to limit the interaction of alignment with the system, but when I feel a player is not following that which they have written on their sheet, I inform them of it and ask them to verify their characters actions against their alignment. Some of my players don't necessarily like this, but others appreciate that the sense of good and evil in the world is real and consistent (or at least as consistent as a single human mind can be). The players who feel differently than I have talked with me about it a quite a bit and we've agreed to disagree. Now that the expectations of the game are clear, they play their characters accordingly and have fun doing it. Were I playing with a group of 6 players who all thought alignment was stupid, I'd be disappointed, but I would drop it.

As a player, I love the challenge of role playing. I'm not great at it yet, but I'm getting better with each new character. My current character, a Druid of Gozreh attempts to emulate Gozreh's principles in every way. She is, obviously true neutral (as Gozreh is the very essences of neutrality), but to call her that only scratches the surface of her. To her, rivers which breath life into the surrounding lands are just as natural as the deadly floods they are capable of bringing. Likewise, the freedom of the strong is no less natural than the enslaving of the weak. Were I to write "True Neutral" on my sheet and stop there, I feel that I would be doing a disservice to myself and everyone else at my table.

It is my opinion that alignment issues are generally one of differences between players and DMs and their expectations of the game. The tabletop gaming experience is a shared one, and I would argue that alignment is likely not the cause of many group's problems, but a symptom of unclear of differing expectations of the game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Removing alignment, as MechE_ mentions, won't change player behaviour, but will just remove the words from the sheet. Someone who wants to murder peasants and kick puppies will still do it. Someone who wants to be utterly chaotic will. The alignment code gives you an idea of a way to interact with others, it doesn't cause or prevent anything a player wants to do. In some cases, it gives the GM a measuring stick -- one they will still need if there are God-given powers and codes and the like.

Removing alignments will do precisely nothing to control players anymore than suggesting a FAQ or internet Q&A will control someone who wants to find loopholes in the rules.

Communication and sometimes a good strong "No" can go a long way to getting everyone on the same page.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played Shadowrun since the game came out, and people act chaotic stupid or Who Me evil or whatever other alignment issues that might crop up.

People misinterpret less often than you might think. More often, they want to do what they want to do and will find a way to make that happen with or without alignment systems.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As I just finished posting a defense over on another thread, I'll be brief:

1. Useful mechanic as a baseline for NPC personality - NPCs who live long enough add to the basics.

2. Follows the very classic fantasy motif of Good vs. Evil. Don't want that theme? House-rule that all mortals are True Neutral (for purposes of all game effects) regardless of actions. Let 'em be judged when they die.

3. Provides beginning players with baseline for their character's personality.

4. Provides 'carrot' and 'stick' to encourage a player to maintain a relatively consistent personality.

I concede that it's misused by heavy-handed GMs (but then, what isn't?) and used to justify things players already made up their minds to do (but then, what isn't?) Many of your other arguments are valid as well, even if I don't feel them quite strong enough to justify scrapping the system.


knightnday wrote:

I've played Shadowrun since the game came out, and people act chaotic stupid or Who Me evil or whatever other alignment issues that might crop up.

People misinterpret less often than you might think. More often, they want to do what they want to do and will find a way to make that happen with or without alignment systems.

true, but my other problem with alignment is it serves as an excuse to arbritrarily straightjacket certain classes into certain behavioral models, which merely encourages finding loopholes so the party isn't screwed over by this restricted character.

i would actually for once, like to play a character with a paladinesque skillset whom doesn't have to penalize the party's rogue, ranger, and bard by preventing them from using stealth, deception and smart tactics and at the same time, doesn't have to wander off and pick mushrooms when the rogue interrogates the captured enemy prisoner. and these other characters don't even have to be evil to do this.

but because alignment is a mechanic, there have to be restrictions and effects that interact with alignment. like detect evil. which completely screws over such concepts for storylines as the corrupted high priest of a good aligned god, because he is literally a detect evil and 3 rounds away from being spotted, or other similarly themed variant storylines

thing is, alignment denies both. and well, a paladin, if they intend to adventure, pretty much has to join a like minded lawful good party on a custom tailored adventure intended to make sure none of them have to do anything that triggers a moral dilemma. meaning no goblin children, no storyline where they have to go outside the law to achieve good, only the straightforward lawful good versus chaotic evil and that is about it. thing is, Paizos Adventures, and many 3rd party ones, include moral dilemmas that could theoretically make paladins unplayable, plus on the flip side, i am sure there are people whom want to play an assassin, but don't want to be evil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

NOOOOOOOOOO!, This Debate can never end

The Exchange

By that reasoning, the problem is divination - not alignment. I'd love to run a campaign where the party isn't 6 seconds away from ruining the plot of any mystery, 12 seconds away from ruining any chase, and about a minute away from ruining negotiation, moral dilemma, interrogation or 'missing object' plots. (Now that I express it like that, I really do hate divination!... as a GM, anyhow.)

I think you've got a point on alignment restrictions for classes - though I shudder to think how many lapsed, corrupt priests there'd be (even a few NPC ones) if the gods didn't enforce some kind of standards.


I am pro-eliminating alignment restrictions, but I think alignment is useful for GMs and often players who want to get on with playing rather than listening to 2 hour monologues (with 6 generations of family history) on one character. As far as enabling bad behavior (and being the source of endless arguments), race and class are just as bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EGG created alignment only because he had a 'problem' player, and created an artificial barricade ('you have to be good') rather than approaching the player and hashing it out (the correct approach). Then it slowly infested more and more of the game.

Terrible in creation, terrible in evolution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

I think you've got a point on alignment restrictions for classes - though I shudder to think how many lapsed, corrupt priests there'd be (even a few NPC ones) if the gods didn't enforce some kind of standards.

One, you don't need alignment for that.

Two, I see that as a story opportunity.
Three, power loss mechanics are boring and lame.

The Exchange

Incidentally, my calculations indicate that if we don't get rid of alignment by 2123, the entire Internet will consist of nothing but arguments about it - based on the rate of increase over the last 40 years. So maybe Umbriere has a point after all. ;)

Sovereign Court

I agree with lincoln hills on this.

I have played many games without alignment and they still have players being jerks and playing stupid characters. Alignment may encourage those things but saying removing alignment will stop these things is not true.

If you want to play a paladin like character there are many ways to do so without being a paladin. Choose cleric or multi-class or choose one of the new classes coming soon in ultimate class or whatever. Frankly, paladin should be a prestige class and not a full class anyway.

Personally, I like the mechanic and system and don't have a problem with it. You can pretty much ignore alignment and it wont hurt your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think the humanity system in wod is much more elegant and sophisticated than alignment, but its so ingrained in D&d I can't see it leaving for at least the next edition or so.

Cue 9 pages of alignment debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If someone's going to put two words on a sheet to sum up their baseline personality, I'd rather they be words with actual definitions, not abstract unquantifiable concepts. Like 'honorable' or 'greedy' or 'cowardly' or 'gruff' or 'afraid of spiders' and stuff like that that actually means something, so you don't get this ridiculous 'any action can be interpretted as any alignment' bull.


Like...archetypes and demeanors?


MattR1986 wrote:
Like...archetypes and demeanors?

Couldn't tell you, I have no idea what that means.

My frame of reference is Psychological Limitations in Champions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is great, I was driving home from work today all like "Man I sure hope there's another alignment debate on the forums today!"


It was another WoD thing


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
It was another WoD thing

Yeah, I think I tried WoD once, didn't like it, never looked back.

The main thing I want is for it to be freeform, not 'pick one off this list'.

The Exchange

You may want to review it again, Zhayne - if only to steal the idea of granting Hero Points (essentially) for actions that strongly support one's chosen beliefs.


No character not in the gods' service should have to adhere to an alignment. It's ridiculous.

No character in the gods' service, however, should be exempt from justifying their actions and even, to an extent, thoughts to the being who provides their divine power.

Frankly, the elimination of alignment would not prevent a smart, strong DM from requiring certain behaviors from an adept, cleric, inquisitor, oracle or (especially a) paladin. The simple solution to not needing to justify behavior is to not play a character whose power is chronically derived from another being, because it gives that being the right to impose its requirements on you in exchange for wielding its might. Simple quid pro quo.


Or go the 4e route and have the powers invested in you via ritual, which then cannot be taken away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

No character not in the gods' service should have to adhere to an alignment. It's ridiculous.

No character in the gods' service, however, should be exempt from justifying their actions and even, to an extent, thoughts to the being who provides their divine power.

Frankly, the elimination of alignment would not prevent a smart, strong DM from requiring certain behaviors from an adept, cleric, inquisitor, oracle or (especially a) paladin. The simple solution to not needing to justify behavior is to not play a character whose power is chronically derived from another being, because it gives that being the right to impose its requirements on you in exchange for wielding its might. Simple quid pro quo.

that is what i liked about Eberron, was that the gods had less interaction with and less influence over the world, which removed a mountain of alignment restrictions across the board.

i'm not saying every setting would have to be like this, but i would like an option akin to this in case of a highly restrictive DM whom is the type to intentionally misuse his powers and deliberate make paladins fall with "you are evil either way" scenarios, which i experience too much. and well, it discourages a lot of concepts when a DM can hold the class features you earned by simply playing the game hostage as a carrot to encourage certain behaviors and can remove them by sheer fiat.


Zhayne wrote:
Or go the 4e route and have the powers invested in you via ritual, which then cannot be taken away.

i like that idea much better than what PF currently went with.


Zhayne wrote:
Or go the 4e route and have the powers invested in you via ritual, which then cannot be taken away.

Are you saying that having powers invested by ritual would make it impossible for the gods to remove them, or that they wouldn't be involved and so their favor wouldn't be applicable?

The latter seems reasonable; the former, not so much.


Jaelithe wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Or go the 4e route and have the powers invested in you via ritual, which then cannot be taken away.

Are you saying that having powers invested by ritual would make it impossible for the gods to remove them, or that they wouldn't be involved and so their favor wouldn't be applicable?

The latter seems reasonable; the former, not so much.

In 4e standard, the gods were distant, so distant their existence was questionable -- they either could or would not interfere directly in the Natural World (or just flat didn't exist, my usual preference). They didn't really figure into it at all.

And, yes, Umbriere, Eberron was fantastic, and a wonderful eye-opening experience for me. BEST. SETTING. EVER.


Thanks for the clarification.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to pop in long enough to say I LIKE the alignment system - a LOT, actually. There's conceivable room for improvement, but it's actually the best "map" of morality/behavior/politics I've ever seen, better than similar stuff (like "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" which some of you may have heard of) that's taken seriously even by people who scoff at fantasy (and wield great influence over policy in the Land of the Living). It's something I've thought about a lot for many years, and I've hit upon a way of thinking about it that makes consistent sense under a wide variety of circumstances - a "working theory," if you will. Part of what may be the problem for other people is shrugging off old and fallacious assumptions, such as the "Chaotic means stupid" or "Chaotic Neutral is Evil" memes that I'm familiar with more by reputation than observation (and when I've observed it, it's on behalf of people who have heard the reputation first and bought into it) - needless to say, neither of these things are remotely true. Where others see "shades of grey" in the contemporary world, I see a "new black-and-white" based on the conclusions drawn when you nix the long-held cultural assumptions that "Good = Law" and "Evil = Chaos," which is exactly what the D&D alignment system did. It may have been an accident but, you know, so were antibiotics. I seriously think that by 2123 (to name a date targeted by a previous post), Gygax might be recognized as almost the Albert Einstein of 20th-Century sociology.

I could write a LOT more about this, but there's just so much to do and so little time - if you want to see some of what I've had to say previously, I've got some good ones listed on my profile's "Favorited By Others" page.


personally, i prefer a setting where the gods do not play an active role in the natural world, and because the gods are so distant, clerics, paladins and such, could be whatever alignment they please because the powers come from ritual, or even a form of highly specialized training, than from some big extradimensional being with an attitude problem and the ability to screw over people permanently because he feels like it. my problem with Pathfinder, and well, Golarion when it comes to alignment restrictions, is the gods interfere too much with the natural world and have too much influence. if gods and strictures didn't have so much influence and were a lot less active in enforcing mortal behaviors, i would like the setting much better, because with the amount of divine interaction, what is the need for adventurers? the gods can solve everything. they are all powerful and shape everything. and stripping powers, counts as interfering with the natural world. i'd rather that divine powers be learned rather than bestowed, or even granted by ritual, and have gods that simply can't interfere with the natural world, not that they won't, but they just can't. rather than the all powerful solve everything model they follow today.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, too, like the alignment system, when it's employed as a guideline and/or baseline and not a straitjacket.


Jaelithe wrote:
I, too, like the alignment system, when it's employed as a guideline and/or baseline and not a straitjacket.

The game uses it as such, though. You must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat ...


Jaelithe wrote:
I, too, like the alignment system, when it's employed as a guideline and/or baseline and not a straitjacket.

my problem with the alignment system is when it is used as a straightjacket and the gods are so overly interactive with the setting, that they can strip your powers for their amusement. gods are just as bad a straightjacket as alignments and alignment restrictions. i know we have disagreements on opening up certain classes, but i feel those classes shouldn't be forced to wear those straightjackets either. a DM or several in my experience, will seek excuses to make paladins fall with 100% accuracy not matter what choice you make, so generally, it is a PITA to travel with a paladin in the party because they tend to be so restrictive it hinders the party, and well, i created a 90% variant for the groups that can't stand to travel with a paladin due to the alignment restrictions but have players that want the mechanics of something similar without having to worry about a DM abusing their power.

when you include a character with alignment restrictions, you draw two camps, people seeking loopholes to work around the restrictions, and DMs whom abuse the restrictions as a means to screw their players over. which generally makes alignment restrictions not a good idea because you either have a character whom has no alignment based downsides due to getting away with the loopholes or a completely powerless, worthless and gimped character because they had an abusive DM find a guaranteed way to cheat them out of their powers to inflate their own DM ego.


Zhayne wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I, too, like the alignment system, when it's employed as a guideline and/or baseline and not a straitjacket.
The game uses it as such, though. You must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat ...

i hate that part

you must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat is bad game design in general. it's like saying, you must be this race or you can't take this class or you can't get this particular attribute bonus.

racial abilities should generally be removed or streamlined to where you don't have to worry about racial bonuses and alignment restrictions should generally be removed. i'm not saying alignment is a bad tool, but it should never be a means to balance a class and should never be mentioned in a class. behavioral restrictions are never a good balancing factor, either because everyone finds loopholes around them, or a power mad DM abuses his power to screw you over with them with greater than 100% success rate at crippling you

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:


The game uses it as such, though. You must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat ...

For certain classes, that's entirely appropriate - it's a tradeoff, a limitation accepted in exchange for greater power otherwise, just like some classes sacrifice HD/skill points/BAB/saving throws/magic/proficiencies/unique class features in exchange for being better at something else. That was the original idea with the Paladin - take a Fighter, impose a strict code other Fighters need not live by, and they get cool powers beyond other Fighters for their trouble (I don't want to start arguing the finer points of Paladin/Fighter balance or anything, it's just an example of how and why that's supposed to work).

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

racial abilities should generally be removed or streamlined to where you don't have to worry about racial bonuses and alignment restrictions should generally be removed. i'm not saying alignment is a bad tool, but it should never be a means to balance a class and should never be mentioned in a class. behavioral restrictions are never a good balancing factor, either because everyone finds loopholes around them, or a power mad DM abuses his power to screw you over with them with greater than 100% success rate at crippling you

I disagree emphatically. The problem you cite is players choosing classes they don't intend to play properly and/or DMs being douchebags. That's certainly a problem, but you're prescribing the wrong cure - if people don't play the game the way it's supposed to be played, that's their fault, not the game's.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Except it doesn't remotely work.

There shouldn't be 'a way to play a class'. A class is just a mechanical framework, it should not have any personality attached to it. It IS the game's fault for being so restrictive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Zhayne wrote:


The game uses it as such, though. You must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat ...
For certain classes, that's entirely appropriate - it's a tradeoff, a limitation accepted in exchange for greater power otherwise, just like some classes sacrifice HD/skill points/BAB/saving throws/magic/proficiencies/unique class features in exchange for being better at something else. That was the original idea with the Paladin - take a Fighter, impose a strict code other Fighters need not live by, and they get cool powers beyond other Fighters for their trouble (I don't want to start arguing the finer points of Paladin/Fighter balance or anything, it's just an example of how and why that's supposed to work).

the only reason i would consider that Valid in 1e is because Fighters HAD NO FEATURES and they had to put some kind of limitation upon them.

PF Paladins aren't Variant Fighters with Extra Features Anymore. in fact, they are balanced with the Barbarian and Ranger, whom all 3 of which are weaker than the wizard, and the wizard has no alignment restrictions.

because they are no longer an upgraded version of fighters, they no longer need alignment restrictions, and using alignment restrictions to balance a class is just bad game design.

and even in 1e, the high attribute requirements kept paladins from seeing many tables. instead of straightjacketing people to force them to behave a certain way to play a specific class, why don't we accept that the alignment restrictions do nothing to balance the class and only encourage the classes that have them to annoy the table by behaving in ways detrimental to the survival of their teamates.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Except it doesn't remotely work.

And we're back to opinion. Clearly other people of intelligence think it indeed does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Except it doesn't remotely work.
And we're back to opinion. Clearly other people of intelligence think it indeed does.

SKR himself has said that RP limitations do not, in anyway, form any kind of mechanical balance, and years of experience has taught me the same.

Why? Because it's completely subjective. If you're going to make a game mechanic, it needs to be clear, concise, unambiguous, and objective. Alignment is anything but that.

Add to that, of course, that RP and mechanics should be separate entities, and alignment remains a total crock.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

Except it doesn't remotely work.

There shouldn't be 'a way to play a class'. A class is just a mechanical framework, it should not have any personality attached to it.

i agree with that philosophy a class is merely a mechanical framework and a package of abilities to quantify what your character can do in the setting, the characters personality, training, and experiences should determine their class, not the other way around. in this case that applies to a variety of classes. paladins not being the only victim, but one of the more notable ones. balancing a class by applying behavioral restrictions does nothing to balance it except give the Douchebag DM the tools required to be a Douchebag. there are a lot of published adventures where if you bring a Paladin, they won't remain a Paladin very long, the vest majority, because Paizo and many third party publishers love their moral dilemmas and often make doing the bad thing a requirement to survive and complete the Adventure Path. for example, there was an old adventure path where you had to sacrifice a young human child to save the world, which a paladin just shouldn't be involved in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have the end all be all on alignment. After you hear what I have to say, nothing else need be said.

Alignment is stupid. If it was a necessary concept to RPGs, other game systems would have it. I haven't played everything, but I've played most everything since 1981. Nowhere else have I seen the concept used.

Its only function is to enable a GM to say "You can't do that." All GMs have fiat power (not that they need use it) so when a GM wants something not to be done, they already have that power.

Alignment is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
As a GM, I don't care about it a whit.

I feel it is an albatross still hanging over the neck of the world's oldest roleplaying system and its descendents.

Okay, thread closed ;)


Zhayne wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Except it doesn't remotely work.
And we're back to opinion. Clearly other people of intelligence think it indeed does.

SKR himself has said that RP limitations do not, in anyway, form any kind of mechanical balance, and years of experience has taught me the same.

Why? Because it's completely subjective. If you're going to make a game mechanic, it needs to be clear, concise, unambiguous, and objective. Alignment is anything but that.

Add to that, of course, that RP and mechanics should be separate entities, and alignment remains a total crock.

i agree with that too, RP and Mechanics should totally be two separate entities.

Scarab Sages

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


the only reason i would consider that Valid in 1e is because Fighters HAD NO FEATURES and they had to put some kind of limitation upon them.

PF Paladins aren't Variant Fighters with Extra Features Anymore.

That's not entirely true. A 1st Edition Fighter's features were implicit - they were the 'gold standard' adventurer with top-notch hit points, proficiencies, and fighting skills that other classes sacrificed/deviated from in in order to get other things.

I'd be on board with revisiting Paladins and other alignment-restricted classes to increase their power proportionately, though, if necessary - you have, at least, tacitly acknowledged the foundational validity of the idea, all that's left is applying it properly in light of what's changed since 1st Edition (which I think actually isn't as much as others might suppose).


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


the only reason i would consider that Valid in 1e is because Fighters HAD NO FEATURES and they had to put some kind of limitation upon them.

PF Paladins aren't Variant Fighters with Extra Features Anymore.

That's not entirely true. A 1st Edition Fighter's features were implicit - they were the 'gold standard' adventurer with top-notch hit points, proficiencies, and fighting skills that other classes sacrificed/deviated from in in order to get other things.

I'd be on board with revisiting Paladins and other alignment-restricted classes to increase their power proportionately, though, if necessary - you have, at least, tacitly acknowledged the foundational validity of the idea, all that's left is applying it properly in light of what's changed since 1st Edition (which I think actually isn't as much as others might suppose).

i still beleive Roleplay and Mechanics should be two seperate entities. there are a lot of things i find more ridiculous than a divinely imbued crusader of a non lawful good alignment, many of which i can suspend disbelief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


i still beleive Roleplay and Mechanics should be two seperate entities. there are a lot of things i find more ridiculous than a divinely imbued crusader of a non lawful good alignment, many of which i can suspend disbelief.

Indeed. I see no reasons Paladins can't champion ANY cause, be it deity or ideal.

A class is supposed to be a broad archetype. If there's only one way you're 'supposed' to play it, then it's too narrow to be a class.


Zhayne wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


i still beleive Roleplay and Mechanics should be two seperate entities. there are a lot of things i find more ridiculous than a divinely imbued crusader of a non lawful good alignment, many of which i can suspend disbelief.

Indeed. I see no reasons Paladins can't champion ANY cause, be it deity or ideal.

A class is supposed to be a broad archetype. If there's only one way you're 'supposed' to play it, then it's too narrow to be a class.

It is a broad archetype of a divine champion of a Lawful Good deity or ideal. That lawful good ideal or deity could vary greatly and still be lawful good. In fact, lawful good characters can vary greatly and still be lawful good. Imagine that.


Quote:
Alignment the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed

You heard him! We're going to solve this whole alignment thing once and for all tonight! Put some coffee on the burner and cancel your dinner plans cuz NO ONE IS LEAVING TILL WE GET THIS S*** SETTLED FOR GOOD!

Scarab Sages

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

i agree with that too, RP and Mechanics should totally be two separate entities.

NO. The introductory page of the 3.5 Player's Handbook includes a 2-sentence 'manifesto:' "The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It’s part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling." The thing that bothers me most about the "The Stormwind Fallacy" is not so much what it says, but the fact that it had to be written at all - the fact is, if someone isn't doing all these things at once in an holistic manner, then they simply don't understand the game properly. The "RP/Mechanics" division being drawn is actually illusory to begin with; think of it as kin to, perhaps inverse corollary of, the "Goldilocks/anthropic/middle-ground fallacy." One game may work this way, and another that way, but in order to understand a given game, you must understand it on its own terms - and in the case of D&D/Pathfinder, that means understanding the holistic nature of every element of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RP and Mechanics don't need to be mutually exclusive, but at the same time, a character's mechanical package should not include ways to straightjacket their roleplay by holding their hard earned class abilities hostage. instead of balancing a class through behavioral restrictions, which fails to work for a variety of reasons, we should open up the classes to add more variety of concepts.

instead of a paladin class whose only viable concept is either a knight of the round table or a knight of charlemagne's court, neither of which fit in a polytheistic society based on heavy modern influences that are as corrupt as the influences of the Roman empire and not as morally uptight of the middle ages where there was one religion whom governed the morals of the remnants of a whole empire, a world that is nowhere near resembling or own middle ages, no matter how close we try with the tech level, but instead our modern world but with swords being more wide spread and magic in place of technology, a world of greedy economics and religions of various forms, the world that a variety of fantasy RPGs of all media portray, the concept of one as Pure as Roland or Gallahad, would fall apart in a world of such corruption.

Pathfinder, D&D and their descendants, including many retroclones, if you look at the economy, the polytheism, the magic that serves as a stand in for technology, and all the modern ideals that bleed through it, is not Arthurian England nor is it Charlegmane's France, the game is built around an assumption similar to the modern earth, despite differences in technology, a society as corrupt and greedy as the Romans, and the Greeks and Persians before them.

you would have to heavily tweak pathfinder and remove a lot of stuff to get anywhere near Charlegmane or Arthur, in fact, those 2 kings and their knights, as well as the paladin class based upon them, are a poor idea for a game heavily influenced by a very Grey and Corrupt society like our own, when such characters existed in a Romanticized Era of Piety and Virtue. to make a holy knight class that truly fits such a Polytheistic and Immoral setting, the paladin's code would be a poor fit. with the amount of Racism, the Greedy Economy, the Modern Influences, the Polytheism and the like, D&D, Pathfinder, and their relatives, this one lone system that uses alignment as a measuring stick, has a morality so screwed up by default, that a paladin cannot exist as published without extreme DM assistance, whether it be changing how the setting operates, or changing how party composition and adventures work. Fitting a Paladin into Pathfinder as written, is akin to Fitting Sir Roland into the Roman Empire, a Den of Wolves that would quickly Exploit Roland's Purity and leave him either a quick premature death, or a jaded and corrupt hollow shell of his former purity. either he would die following his beliefs, or he would discard them in this harsh polytheistic world that has so many modern influences, that it might as well be modern america which might as well be the Roman Empire, the very corruption he opposed.

asking a paladin to always be lawful good and follow a code of conduct, is to die in a fantasy world that started with a 50 year old book written by a guy whom was heavily influenced by modern corruption without realizing. the majority of stock fantasy settings, whether published in an RPG book, found in a Console Game, or in an MMO use so much influence from the 20th and 21st centuries, an influence very similar to that of the Roman Empire at the height of corruption, that raising a paladin whom follows their code, requires them to either be favored by powerful outside forces beyond existence, die following beliefs that get them killed alongside a reckless and unadapted lifestyle, or adapt to the people and become as grey as they are.

there is no true fantasy setting that truly fits a society the paladin can fit in, because, we are so detached from the medieval roots outside of stories, due to modern influence, that we fail to see the intense morality and piety required of a setting resembling anything historically accurate and see the world through our own Hedonistic, Greedy, Tainted Corporate Eyes

back in medieval times, there may have been intense virtue requirements to become a knight, which allowed them to keep the depraved in line, but that only worked because society at the time focused on one major worldwide religion that controlled everything, no matter how corrupt that religion really was, but the moment you include polytheism, and the moment you include the widespread modern levels of communication and innovation, whether you call it technology or magic, you will achieve the same corruption we have in our own world. technology has massive price tags attached, as do magic items, and using magic items is akin to operating technology. the only difference is magic is more effective and more expensive than our own technology, which encourages the greediest businesses to become, contract and train wizards and other spellcasters, because magic is the super corporation, much like petrolium is in our own world. just as we use petrolium and other fuels for a great many things, magic is used for the construction of a lot of devices and even should one not afford to commission a wizard's service, they will develop low income means to incorporate basic arcane utilities, traps that cure diseases and heal wounds if you insert a small amount of coin, akin to a vending machine, cheap packets for flavoring a beverage to something more desirable, arcane lights that can be used perpetually.

with magic being a more prominent power in many fantasy RPGs than technology in own world, and with magic providing greater conveniences, a variety of tactics, countermeasures, precautions and innovations will be made to equalize a portion of the wizard prominence and wizards will be at the top of the chain, and because of this, there will be Roman levels of corruption and well, especially, corrupt wizards. in a world like this, a paladin's morality will lead to a short lived paladin and thus the extinction of the paladin class, unless paladins adapt to said world. because a lot of fantasy worlds deal with the prominence of magic eliminating businesses, have modern influences in morality and economy, a paladin will not survive long in such a world, because of this, we need classes like the paladin to be more adapted to this more advanced world with a mountain of modern influences and better than modern technology. because of this, the core paladin as written, no matter how you shoehorn it into most fantasy worlds written by people from the modern era, is generally a bad fit. it is like fitting a square peg into a round hole, the first strike against Sir Roland, is the Polytheism, the second, the Modern Morality and Influence, and third, the economy influenced by Modern American Morality and the effects such heavy sophistication impose. Pathfinder and D&D, as well as their cousins, are not Medieval Arthurian England, no matter how we imagine them to be, nor are they Charlemagne's France either. the amount of modern influence and the amount of information leaked from alternate medias and mythologies, makes a paladin unplayable as it is currently written. at the same time, Druids as written are not Celtic Druids or anything like them, but something closer to a hybrid of a modern enviromentalist and a Native American Skinwalker with Shamanic powers tacked on. the only thing missing is DRX/Gold and a hint of carnivorism.

i'm not saying most fantasy settings are modern america, just that a lot of modern american influence tends to bleed through when such settings are written, and the bled influence makes the core paladin a bad fit. maybe they aren't portrayed as corrupt as i am making them out to be, but there is a lot of corruption behind the scenes. thieves guilds being a good example, as well as bandits, pirates, a bunch of published adventures where you have to commit a few evil actions to progress the story, and well, the majority of published adventures are where a paladin fails to fit. not that a dungeon master can't create and encourage a campaign, setting, and group that accommodates the paladin's needs without the intentional moral dilemmas, but just like a rogue or monk, a paladin is a very niche class that depends on niche exceptions to function, niche exceptions that if not provided, can topple, cripple and gimp them while leaving them useless. a paladin only works in a setting with a clear black and white morality where you play as the good guys and the only hostile foes you encounter are evil combatants and you never encounter evil noncombatants, because killing a noncombatant leads to instant falling very quickly, no matter how evil the child or woman was, and well, classes with alignment restrictions are the primary target for jerkwad power mad dungeon masters, and characters dependant on niche pieces of specialized equipment come second.

i'm asking an alternative, both for the people that use lots of misery porn in their settings, for people that don't want to be cripplied by Jerkwad DMs, and third, for people whom want to play in a setting with modern or Roman influenced morality. to at least have an official by the book option for removing alignment restrictions for the purpose of running games that are darker in nature and a lot less idealistic than a paladin requires. worlds like Eberron and Ravenloft, that are so Grim and Gritty, an innocent and naive Goodie two shoes with a pure heart just wouldn't fit. settings like Cthulu where your innocence will quickly fade with your personal sense of virtue as you try to survive. a lawful good paragon of virtue does not fit in most horror settings, and fits in very few fantasy settings not built around accomodating their requirements.

1 to 50 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment, the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.