Idk, you guys are odd with your bro code and man code and wh a t evs
Less of a "code" and more of a gentleman's agreement to the effect of "no d!ck punching". Don't break that agreement unless you enjoy getting in the junk right back.
But there's definitely no kind of secret Bro Code, right fellas? *makes secret sign*
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's most definitely on topic. It's saying the default is, if there is a default, neutral. A listing of the abilities of the class is, in most cases, entirely alignment neutral. The fact that a gunslinger specializes in a gun makes him neither good nor evil. It is merely a skill set, nothing more, and a skill set that can easily be held by someone lawful good or chaotic evil or anywhere inbetween.. Someone lawful good being good at killing someone and using an instrument designed to that purpose in the correct way when he does have to do so is not evil.Many people are answering that they think your particular sorting criterion for putting things into the category of 'evil' seem rather skewed.Which is also somewhat off topic to extremely off topic depending on the post. I'm surprised and disappointed that I'm the only one who submitted a complete list.
In fact, by killing as effectively as possible, they reduce the suffering of their opponent.
Consider Damerrich, the Lawful Good god of executions.
Yeah, any class without an alignment restriction would default to True Neutral as its "natural" alignment. But then, I tend to think of True Neutral as the most common alignment for people anyway. They don't want things to be in a state of total anarchy or rigid order, and while they're not going to be jerks for no reason they also look out for themselves and generally don't make major sacrifices to help strangers.
Yeah, any class without an alignment restriction would default to True Neutral as its "natural" alignment. But then, I tend to think of True Neutral as the most common alignment for people anyway. They don't want things to be in a state of total anarchy or rigid order, and while they're not going to be jerks for no reason they also look out for themselves and generally don't make major sacrifices to help strangers.
Neutral Good would make more sense for a natural default, if we're taking human psychology and nature into account at all. Perhaps even Lawful Good, or at least Lawful Neutral, given our natural inclinations towards such practices as trading, lawmaking and forming social groups/hierarchies.
Not that the D&D alignment system is nearly nuanced or detailed enough to account for real-world morality and ethics.
Yeah, any class without an alignment restriction would default to True Neutral as its "natural" alignment. But then, I tend to think of True Neutral as the most common alignment for people anyway. They don't want things to be in a state of total anarchy or rigid order, and while they're not going to be jerks for no reason they also look out for themselves and generally don't make major sacrifices to help strangers.Neutral Good would make more sense for a natural default, if we're taking human psychology and nature into account at all. Perhaps even Lawful Good, or at least Lawful Neutral, given our natural inclinations towards such practices as trading, lawmaking and forming social groups/hierarchies.
Not that the D&D alignment system is nearly nuanced or detailed enough to account for real-world morality and ethics.
After driving through town and along the Interstates here, I need to remind myself that normal humans aren't CE by default. Honestly, unless a class forces an alignment pull, the default alignment would be the race's own default. It looks like we're assuming filthy disgusting humies with this so N unless forced away.
|
Yes, most humans should be TN. However Knitifine is correct that some classes seem to fit some alignments more than others. It might be that some classes are disproportionately represented in some alignments - for example, maybe only 5% of people are CG, but 8% of rangers have that alignment.
My ideas
Core Classes
Barbarian: CN
Bard: CN
Cleric: As deity, but likely more lawful than chaotic
Druid: TN
Fighter: TN
Monk: LN
Paladin: LG
Ranger: CG - possibly a leftover bias from 2E
Rogue: CN
Sorcerer: CN
Wizard: LN
-=-=-=-
Base Classes
Alchemist: TN
Cavalier: LN
Gunslinger: CN
Inquisitor: LN
Magus: TN
Oracle: TN
Summoner: LN
Witch: CN
-=-=-=-
Alternate Classes
Antipaladin: CE
Ninja: LN
Samurai: LN
-=-=-=-
Hybrid Classes
Arcanist: TN
Bloodrager: CN
Brawler: CN
Hunter: TN
Investigator: LN
Shaman: NG
Skald: CN
Slayer: TN
Swashbuckler: CG - Princess Bride might be a factor...
Warpriest: As deity
-=-=-=-
NPC Classes
Adept: TN
Aristocrat: LN
Commoner: TN
Expert: TN
Warrior: TN
Summary:
LG: Paladin
NG: Shaman
CG: Ranger, Swashbuckler
LN: Monk, Wizard, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Summoner, Samurai, Ninja, Investigator, Aristocrat
TN: Druid, Fighter, Alchemist, Magus, Oracle, Arcanist, Hunter, Warpriest, Slayer, Adept, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
CN: Barbarian, Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer, Gunslinger, Witch, Bloodrager, Brawler, Skald
LE:
NE:
CE: Antipaladin
I note that I find it much easier to think of a class as biased along the law-chaos axis than the good-evil axis; there are only 4 classes that I think of as being biased towards good and only 1 biased towards evil. That may be because I see Law and Chaos as being associated with certain methods, while Good/Evil is more about goals. Generally, I see those classes whose training or class features suggest strong organizational loyalty as somewhat more lawful, while those that gain power from sources that are outside of organized social structures as more chaotic.
Why NG for Shaman?
|
|
I associate them with the "village healer / wise person" role, which is benevolent.
Witches and druids could also fill that role but it doesn't feel as arhchetypal for me. For witches I think there's too much "good witch/bad witch" literature, and it balances out with "neutral but probably a bit outside the community." Druids might feel TN because of 2E, the PF "any neutral" requirement, or because there are historical reports of druids performing human sacrifice and that makes me less likely to accept them as being more good (even if the game doesn't actually support that and even if historical shamans actually did engage in such sacrifices).
Yeah, I will grant that some classes feel a bit more placed on the law/chaos side of the scale. Wizards can be any alignment, but when entering the class requires many long years of dedicated study it would make sense that it trends towards lawfulness, while the classic rogue is a sneakster who fights dirty and doesn't obey any laws that get in his way.
Really, the good/evil axis is the one I find more problematic for putting any class other than Paladin and Antipaladin on.