Cult of Personality: Misconceptions on Alignment


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'd like to say this is all good stuff, very well manner discussion. I think that comes from the fact we aren't talking about what the meaning of good and evil are since that's subjective to every table, but how to apply the system regardless of individual interpretations of good and evil, law and chaos are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another good thing to keep in mind: Alignment is NOT the only way you can behave. It's only an indicator of a character's general behavior. A Lawful Good character, for example, might be convinced that rigorously following the law would be a poor idea in a certain situation, while a Chaotic Good character might agree to follow someone else's rules for a night, and neither would change alignments. It's not like you can't act out of alignment - only egregious or constant violations are meant to result in an alignment change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
See, you say that, but that is not a universally accepted philosophical system. I have met people who think that inaction is not a type of choice, and thus if something happens due to your inaction, you get no moral backlash.

I have met people who think the earth is only 6000 years old, they're still (probably) wrong. I have already explained that unless you are rendered incapable of action, inaction is exactly as much a choice as action. the only thing that would change that would be to claim that free will is an illusion and nothing is really a choice (which may be true) but that renders the entire discussion moot. as I said, people say that because they're uncomfortable with the idea of a situation in which their choices result in someone's death, but that "feeling" doesn't actually make inaction less of a choice.

also, that beliefs feel true and most people never question them does not mean that they are true and i, for one, try to question them whenever they are challenged. so, again, how things "feel" is largely irrelevant.


Nohwear wrote:
Alright, how do you define Lawful? Is it always the law of the land? If you find yourself in a a Lawful Evil land, but you are Lawful Good, is it Chaotic to rebel against those laws? If not then why? Is Lawful determined by where you were born? What if you were born in a Chaotic place? Can you still be Lawful? Is there a universal definition of Lawful? If so, how can the Hellkights and most Paladin orders both be considered Lawful?

The law of the land has nothing to do with it, imo. I see Lawful as a matter of being principled.

It doesn't matter what those principles are, so much as that when deciding how to act, you base your decision on them rather than the situation. For example, a more Chaotic character will generally consider the pros and cons of lying on a case-by-case basis, while a Lawful character will probably already have a personal rule about it - whether that's "lying is okay if you won't get caught", or "lying is okay if it's to save a life", or "no lying ever". And their first consideration will be that principle, not the specific situation.
Yes, a LG character can very plausibly choose to tell a lie for the greater good, while normally being against lying, but it's because they're choosing to prioritize being Good over being Lawful.

And if you treat alignment as "you must always act within these lines", that's your own choice of how to interpret the system. By the rules, it's a statement of a character's general inclinations, not an absolute. If characters were supposed to never act against their alignment, there wouldn't be any need for the rules to address times when they do. For example, that the Paladin code of conduct specifies that a paladin will fall for ceasing to be LG, but also for committing an evil act. Which is proof that committing an evil act doesn't mean ceasing to be LG. The game expects characters to sometimes act against their alignments, and lists no consequences for doing so in nearly all cases.

Not a fan of loyalties, myself. They're too likely to be too narrow for mechanical purpose, and I enjoy alignment being mechanically relevant. How common is it going to be that anyone will have a loyalty opposing one of "family" or "nature"? And defining loyalties as opposing each other seems like it would often be even more of a subjective judgment call by the GM. Would one person's loyalty to "tradition" oppose one to "independence"? What if the first character came from a culture where tradition encouraged independence? Doesn't sound like a great improvement.


Chess Pwn wrote:
So the character whose backstory was of selfless sacrifice, honor for life, and being an upstanding lawful citizen, wasn't LG? He was always the new alignment?

No, he wasn't. He changed. People don't stay the same. Change happens, whether I you like it or not.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So the character whose backstory was of selfless sacrifice, honor for life, and being an upstanding lawful citizen, wasn't LG? He was always the new alignment?
No, he wasn't. He changed. People don't stay the same. Change happens, whether I you like it or not.

So the guy has a dramatic alignment shift one day for little to no reason?

I get if the guy started out LG and changed as he went. But if the players has him needlessly killing people from the get go... that's not really a change of the person's character is it?


Chess Pwn wrote:
So the guy has a dramatic alignment shift one day for little to no reason?

Yes? It's not like it's impossible IRL.

Quote:
I get if the guy started out LG and changed as he went. But if the players has him needlessly killing people from the get go... that's not really a change of the person's character is it?

There's the problem. Not the character's fault his player is dumb/a douche.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So the character whose backstory was of selfless sacrifice, honor for life, and being an upstanding lawful citizen, wasn't LG? He was always the new alignment?
No, he wasn't. He changed. People don't stay the same. Change happens, whether I you like it or not.

So the guy has a dramatic alignment shift one day for little to no reason?

I get if the guy started out LG and changed as he went. But if the players has him needlessly killing people from the get go... that's not really a change of the person's character is it?

no, i'm pretty sure someone else already said this, but this is just a case of a player not being able or willing to play in the character he prescribed himself with said backstory. this is a game and the problem can be with the player.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed an unhelpful post. It's fine to disagree with the concept of an alignment system, but it's not OK to refer who do use it as "bad", "childish", or "lazy."


cuatroespada wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So the character whose backstory was of selfless sacrifice, honor for life, and being an upstanding lawful citizen, wasn't LG? He was always the new alignment?
No, he wasn't. He changed. People don't stay the same. Change happens, whether I you like it or not.

So the guy has a dramatic alignment shift one day for little to no reason?

I get if the guy started out LG and changed as he went. But if the players has him needlessly killing people from the get go... that's not really a change of the person's character is it?
no, i'm pretty sure someone else already said this, but this is just a case of a player not being able or willing to play in the character he prescribed himself with said backstory. this is a game and the problem can be with the player.

But then the player complains that you're telling him how to run his character because of his alignment choice and makes a thread on the forums how people run alignment wrong.

I'm just pointing out why there are two views and why people often are talking past each other.


Chess Pwn wrote:

But then the player complains that you're telling him how to run his character because of his alignment choice and makes a thread on the forums how people run alignment wrong.

I'm just pointing out why there are two views and why people often are talking past each other.

okay, but then the player is wrong. because that's not what you're doing. you're telling him that he's not playing the character he described irrelevant of the alignment we choose to label it with. it's not in character for a person that we don't bother labelling with an alignment but who behaves as described in his backstory to start suddenly killing people for no good reason. he's using alignment as a scapegoat and should be chastised for it.

if it were me, i'd tell the player they have a few options:

  • add more to the backstory to show why the character has changed so much.
  • learn to play the character as originally described.
  • rocks fall; that guy dies. make a new character with a backstory more appropriate to the way you intend to play.

    note: i wouldn't bother mentioning alignment in the options because it's really not the relevant issue.


  • For alignments, some people start small and work to bigger things.
    But that is wrong. If you think very big and carefully downscale it, alignment makes more sense (at least to me).

    Law for example is not about "laws of the land". It is about fundamental laws of existence. Such as "Mortals die". "Time ticks forward". "Planes are disconnected from each other". Just because you jaywalked on your way to work does should not require the GM to do book keeping that you got +1 chaotic points.

    But I guess alignment is meant to be easy way to call out-of-character moments if they said they want to be good but don't care to commit to it. Usually best way to signal you don't want to care about alignment is just to leave the spot blank.


    Envall wrote:
    Usually best way to signal you don't want to care about alignment is just to leave the spot blank.

    So long as that blankness is respected and left alone and not automatically made Neutral I'd be fine with that.

    Honestly Neutral might not be so bad if certain spells (and probably other things) didn't take it into consideration.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
    Envall wrote:
    Usually best way to signal you don't want to care about alignment is just to leave the spot blank.

    So long as that blankness is respected and left alone and not automatically made Neutral I'd be fine with that.

    Honestly Neutral might not be so bad if certain spells (and probably other things) didn't take it into consideration.

    neutrality isn't a means of escaping the consequences of an aligned cosmos... there's nothing wrong with the game still having some aligned things affect neutral characters. it would, however, be nice if there were an easier way to divorce alignment from some of the mechanics so it could be more easily disregarded by those who have no palate for it.


    SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
    Envall wrote:
    Usually best way to signal you don't want to care about alignment is just to leave the spot blank.

    So long as that blankness is respected and left alone and not automatically made Neutral I'd be fine with that.

    Honestly Neutral might not be so bad if certain spells (and probably other things) didn't take it into consideration.

    I can't really remember any neutral-hate spells or other rules at all.

    Neutrals are really left alone.


    It really does seem that before you decided rather you want to mess with the Alignment system, you need to decide if you want it to have a major effect on your campaign. From there you need to decide if the alignment system as is fits with what you want. If does not, then you need to pick an idea from Unchained, the internet, or your own mind that you like and that does what you want for your campaign. I believe that the biggest obstacle right now is a disagreement on how one thinks that Alignment should matter, especially how it should effect RP. Rather the current system works, seems to be of secondary concern. I would argue that this topic has actually not been discussed much. At least not as its own point.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Envall wrote:
    SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
    Envall wrote:
    Usually best way to signal you don't want to care about alignment is just to leave the spot blank.

    So long as that blankness is respected and left alone and not automatically made Neutral I'd be fine with that.

    Honestly Neutral might not be so bad if certain spells (and probably other things) didn't take it into consideration.

    I can't really remember any neutral-hate spells or other rules at all.

    Neutrals are really left alone.

    I hate those filthy neutrals.

    With enemies, you know where you stand. With neutrals, who knows?

    It sickens me.


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Envall wrote:

    I can't really remember any neutral-hate spells or other rules at all.

    Neutrals are really left alone.

    Champions of Balance has a few spells that hit neutral characters harder than those of extreme alignments.


    another Alignment thread...
    there are reasons that the Alignment system is there and how it's used which date back to AD&D. Most are familiar with the values of Good, Neutral, and Evil. M. Moorcock wrote a series of novels which impacted people's thinking at the time. Law and Chaos were depicted as opposing forces, much as Good and Evil are thought of with neutral being the middle ground. That made its way into spell mechanics and the rest is history.
    It has always been left to the GM to arbitrate when alignment infractions occur and what the penalties are. Positive reinforcement was not addressed and generally assumed. The game Stormbringer (based on M. Moorcock's works) did have a positive feedback mechanism for Alignment acts tied directly to divine intervention called elan.
    In my home game I've used elan and similar list of acts for years. But it's a home brew solution.
    Some people like a 16-type indicator based on Carl Jung's "Psychological Types", or Myers-Briggs test. See Personality test.

    so back to alignment in PF/AD&D, it's a general philosophy or outlook and can be something specific or extra-planar, such as an aura or alignment plane such as Gehenna. The ideas of character alignment and planar alignment go hand in hand and work reasonably well in the game system. It's hard to model something like outlook or philosophy, but it's been done simply in the game. It is not meant to be a character personality but an attribute of that character personality description, just as INT, WIS, and CHA are. You could have the plane of INT (and perhaps the living plane Neth is such an example).

    I've always preferred the terms; Good-Neutral-Evil and Law-Neutrality-Chaos. This avoids the two neutrals being confused.


    @Azothath, do you feel that means that Alignment does try to paint a simpler black and white approach to morality? It certainly seems that way if everything can clearly be measured as good or evil, lawful or chaotic. I am trying to see if I am understanding what you are saying correctly.


    if it were black and white there would be specific guidelines rather than the general guidelines and few specific examples of icons or of clear deviations. The game portrays moralities in the GNE/LNC axis in a simple manner - with 9 alignments it's not that complex. There is a bit of fuzzyness as to where exactly the borders are, and that's expected given it's an outlook or moral assessment.

    From a spell targeting and planar usage, it needs to be clear. Thus you see Unholy Blight do more damage to Goods than Neutrals and no damage to Evils. You can't have players suddenly declaring - well, I've been especially evil today so I shouldn't take any damage. That kinda thing just isn't gonna work in the long run.

    If it helps - think of Alignment as a trailing total sum of actions, the A1C blood test of morality(rather than sugar binding) in the game.


    for icons, I think of SheRa as Lawful Good. She goes out of her way to "teach" people how to be better and trick them into doing good things. She also avoids breaking laws and uses the law to enforce her viewpoint.

    HeMan is more Chaotic Good, as he resorts to violence to subdue bad guys and teach them a lesson... and what lesson is that? lol... it's more about him and his power than making people better, he doesn't have much respect for laws.


    The alignment system is one of those weird legacy issues. It's a hold over from earlier editions that is included in newer editions, not because it adds to the game, but simply because it's always been there.

    For the vast majority of characters it is a meaningless distinction. What does it matter if your wizard is LN, or LG, or TN or any other alignment for that matter. It rarely has any in-game effect.

    To be honest, I fail to see the purpose of the system at all. In the OPs article he said, "your alignment doesn't determine your actions, your actions determine your alignment." And while that is an interesting perspective, it really fails to answer the question. Why does it matter?

    Is it just so the DM can say, "You've been bad, change your alignment and now you take extra damage from holy weapons."

    It really strikes me as pointless for every character except perhaps Clerics and Paladins, and a code of conduct for those characters would be both a better role-playing aid and a clearer measure of whether the character was adhering to their religious beliefs.


    Dark Die High wrote:
    The alignment system is one of those weird legacy issues. It's a hold over from earlier editions that is included in newer editions, not because it adds to the game, but simply because it's always been there....

    that opinion is clearly incorrect.

    Alignment is integral to the game as a descriptive element, as a natural cause for drama (it's EVIL! Kill IT!), as a tool for spell effects, and as a handle to keep divine characters in their role.
    There are Good/Neutral/Evil/Chaotic/Neutrality/Lawful spells, domains, planes, even books & supplements devoted to the topic. Where would the infernal planes, demons, and devils be without Evil! What would Good characters have to fight?...
    Alignment ties in the concepts of GNE/CNL to characters, monsters, and character design. It's really up to the GM how they implement and use it.

    If you leave the tool in the toolbox it doesn't get much use.


    I dislike alignment in how it is handled in Pathfinder and it's default setting. It means you can be a completely good individual while going to Hell, because you weren't informed that what you were doing has the [evil] descriptor.

    Also, science it's objective in the setting, it means that you can game the system. A wizard can change what afterlife he goes to by just repeatedly casting the right spells over and over. That could have an interesting effect on the campaign setting, but for some reason I think Paizo will purposefully ignore it or try to handwave it with "Uh, pharasma no longer cares about Alignment in where people go in the afterlife and instead cares about your alignment."

    Also, IMO, subjective morality gives outsiders so much more depth.


    Azothath wrote:
    Dark Die High wrote:
    The alignment system is one of those weird legacy issues. It's a hold over from earlier editions that is included in newer editions, not because it adds to the game, but simply because it's always been there....

    that opinion is clearly incorrect.

    Alignment is integral to the game as a descriptive element, as a natural cause for drama (it's EVIL! Kill IT!), as a tool for spell effects, and as a handle to keep divine characters in their role.
    There are Good/Neutral/Evil/Chaotic/Neutrality/Lawful spells, domains, planes, even books & supplements devoted to the topic. Where would the infernal planes, demons, and devils be without Evil! What would Good characters have to fight?...
    Alignment ties in the concepts of GNE/CNL to characters, monsters, and character design. It's really up to the GM how they implement and use it.

    If you leave the tool in the toolbox it doesn't get much use.

    I'd have Outsiders be representations of platonic ideals, personally.

    Devils would be representative of Tyranny, Daemons of Nihilism, Demons of Destruction, Angels of Benevolence, etc.

    Now, while mortals might think that Tyranny and Destruction are evil, the universe itself doesn't really care one way or the other.

    Scarab Sages

    Alignment can be a fin and inspiring part of play when done right. This book provides a lot of helpful ideas.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Azothath wrote:
    that opinion is clearly incorrect...

    Using opinion and incorrect in the same sentence, other than pointing it out I'm not even sure what to say.

    Azothath wrote:
    Alignment is integral to the game as a descriptive element, as a natural cause for drama (it's EVIL! Kill IT!)

    It's pretty clear from this statement that you and I have entirely different philosophies about how the game should be run and what parts of it need to go to improve gameplay. I think characters should have better reasons to kill things than— It pings Evil. It has to die. That's not drama that's a videogame.

    As for spell descriptors, planes, and what not- Evil Outsider could be replaced by Outsider of the Lower Planes, Good Outsider by Outsider of the Upper Planes. There's no need to attach the capital E, evil to Demons. The fact that they are willing to torment people for their own pleasure pretty much says it all.

    While the alignment system works fine for things like Angels and Demons, when attached to people it just seems like arbitrary and pointless pigeonholing. It doesn't add anything to the game.

    Azothath wrote:
    If you leave the tool in the toolbox it doesn't get much use.

    And if you can leave the tool in the toolbox, it's not a necessary tool. Here's my question. How does the game change if you get rid of alignments? In my experience it doesn't, but that's just my opinion.


    @Dark Die High, Would you then say that using loyalties, or a similar system, is more adding then replacing something?


    Nohwear wrote:
    @Dark Die High, Would you then say that using loyalties, or a similar system, is more adding then replacing something?

    To be honest, I'm not familiar enough with loyalties to offer a qualified opinion, but I will say in general I'm not a big fan of mechanics that dictate player choice. I've played other games that had similar mechanics, like Exalted and Pendragon, and those aspects of the system weren't horrible, but I don't think they added to the game.

    As a general rule, I think players should be free to choose whatever actions they like. As a GM, I'm not keeping track of the bad things players do so I can change a box on their character sheet. The gameworld watches what the characters do and treats them accordingly.

    How does the loyalties system work and what book is it in?


    It is in Unchained. It completely replaces the Alignment system by having each player pick a number of things that they are loyal to. It reminds me of what Exalted uses, so I may have my answer.

    EDIT: Unfortunately, this is the best that I can do to provide a link.


    Nohwear wrote:

    It is in Unchained. It completely replaces the Alignment system by having each player pick a number of things that they are loyal to. It reminds me of what Exalted uses, so I may have my answer.

    EDIT: Unfortunately, this is the best that I can do to provide a link.

    I'd have to read the whole thing, but at first glance it looks like a positive change. I'll have to check that out!


    I prefer loyalty because you can make a character who has "His Family/[his nation]/[his religion]" as his loyalties, but then if you want a more "standard" character you can have "Justice/Kindness/Order". So it ends up being able to cover All the benefits of Alignment + it can be subjective + it can make outsiders less one-dimensional + you cannot game-the-system like you can alignment + you can get Smite Heretic, or Detect Enemy Nation, or Smite Outlaw.


    The thing about loyalty is this it completely messes with paladins. I can only smite that which is the opposite loyalty of what my main loyalty is. So if my loyalty is to my family who can I smite. The three people who hate my family. Every player would just pick weird loyalties that have no opposite so anythign that would have been an alignment ability, smite, detect, protection against will no longer work on them beause sorry none of my loyalties are the exact opposite of that.

    Loyalties in of themselves are fine. My Investigator has loyalty to the magnimar gaurd and loyalty to his sister. But none of that realy replaces alignment, it doesn't take into consideration anywhere near the amount that alignment does in the grand scheme of the cosmic battles going on in the outer planes.

    Alignment has purpose it is more than just a roleplay aid it is an actual mechanic in the game. There are planes built out of the stuff of each alignment. The cosmos is well aware of what alignment people are and it has spells and abilities that relate to it. Loyalties are vague little things that aren't built into the very fabric of existence like alignment is.

    And sure you can say you don't want to play with the cosmic war. But the campaign setting is designed to show cases how the rules of the game work. And alignment is vital to how the campaign setting works. So tearing it out tears out a huge amount of functionality.


    Envall wrote:

    I can't really remember any neutral-hate spells or other rules at all.

    Neutrals are really left alone.

    "Damage other alignment" spells such as Chaos Hammer and Holy Smite say they deal half damage to what are essentially Neutrals.

    Apupunchau wrote:
    But the campaign setting is designed to show cases how the rules of the game work. And alignment is vital to how the campaign setting works. So tearing it out tears out a huge amount of functionality.

    Why do people have to use the default setting?


    Apupunchau wrote:
    The thing about loyalty is this it completely messes with paladins. I can only smite that which is the opposite loyalty of what my main loyalty is. So if my loyalty is to my family who can I smite. The three people who hate my family.

    Actually, based on the wording of the section, it can be abit more applicable than that "If the paladin's highest loyalty is to good, she can smite foes with a loyalty to evil, but if her highest loyalty is to her king, her smite might instead apply to foes with loyalties to the jealous baron's rebellion." I doubt the baron loyalists have "Kill the king as a thing.", as long as their loyalties would end up opposed to your highest it can count as evil. If there is an army that is going to destroy the nation or city in which your family live (and you have your family as your highest), the soldiers of that country would probably count as evil to you. The royal family that is trying to screw over your family politically, evil. The villains who attack your family to get to you, evil. People who fight against Family itself, evil (it's a game where you can stab the fear of relationship anxiety, people can have weird motivations).

    Quote:
    Every player would just pick weird loyalties that have no opposite so anythign that would have been an alignment ability, smite, detect, protection against will no longer work on them beause sorry none of my loyalties are the exact opposite of that.

    As long as the player's roleplaying their loyalties I don't see the issue with that. I mean, a loyalty with no possible opposites sounds either hard to roleplay or effectively neutral.

    Quote:
    And sure you can say you don't want to play with the cosmic war.

    Funnily enough, my setting is a cosmic war between the outsiders... Just becomes abit more nuiansed when you can't objectively say "Uh... we're the good guys in this war. It says "Good" on our shirts, and "Evil" on theirs."

    Having objective alignment in the manner of D&D and Pathfinder may as well make cosmological war Blue Team vs. Red Team rather than anything actually related to morality.

    Quote:
    But the campaign setting is designed to show cases how the rules of the game work.

    Actually it's just to tell stories for the Adventure Paths, and many do not like the setting of Golarion.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    There are a few points that need to be made here.

    1) Alignment and behavior are reciprocal, not one-sided. Some argue that your alignment "dictates" your behavior and others argue that your behavior "determines" your alignment. But the fact of the matter is that the two co-create your character. Good alignment yields Good actions and Good actions foster Good alignment. This is part of good roleplay; acting out your character properly. A Paladin or Good Cleric doesn't do Good and refrain from doing Evil merely out of fear of falling and losing his powers. They spent their lives building themselves up to the Good characters that they are; you, the player, just didn't meet them until their starting age. If you write down LG on the character sheet and then immediately start acting CE with entirely no context, rhyme, or reason, that isn't a fault of the alignment system. You like what you're good at more, so you do it more and, the more you do it, the better you get; it's a self-feeding system. Alignment changes should be major philosophical, spiritual, and maybe even traumatic events in a character's life; not whimsical nor prompted by little more than, "I want to take this <insert rules element here>, but I need to be Good for it... so I'm Good now."

    2) Pathfinder's system is predicated on the notion of objective alignment. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos aren't just philosophical abstracts in Pathfinder. They are fundamental energies as real as Gravity and Electromagnetism are to us. However, good and evil are also subjective philosophical abstracts. Two sides fighting in a war can each refer to themselves as "good" and their opponent as "evil". But behavior and mentality also "resonate", to a certain degree, with the idealized, fundamental energies of the universe. Revering and respecting the sanctity of life is a mentality that resonates harmonically with the energy called Good and discordantly with the energy called Evil. And, again, it's reciprocal. Good energies generate a propensity for Good behavior and good behavior naturally goes together with Good energy. Whichever you start with, it will naturally attract and harmonize with the other.

    3) A few things an be done to improve the alignment system; it's hardly perfect, but it doesn't exactly deserve the level of vitriol that some apply to it. Alignment subtypes are good for certain classes like Clerics and especially Paladins who not only resonate with the alignment energies but, in the case of Paladins, are fueled by it directly. Characters with an alignment subtype (either by race or class feature) should have behaviors in concordance with that subtype reinforced (and, for balance, opposing behaviors should require a will save). For instance, finishing off a non-evil opponent after you've incapacitated him would go against Good alignment; someone who is truly Good wouldn't want to do this. So it should take a will save to take a life in this manner if your character is suffused with the "energy" of Good. Also, while it's understandable that they don't want to "over-define" the alignments so they aren't overly restrictive for characters, the "under-definement" that they opted for instead is just as restrictive because it leaves it too open to interpretation exactly what and who qualifies as what alignment. What qualifies as a Good action (will maintain Good alignment and pushes a non-Good character in the direction of Good)? What kinds of actions are "neutral" in that they won't affect your alignment at all and what kinds are "Neutral" in that they will pull you from either extreme towards Neutral? What happens when you are in an "alignment dilemma" where each of your available options violates one or the other axis of your alignment? What does it take to change alignments? Is it just as easy as, "Ok, I'm Evil today because I want to use this feat, but tomorrow I'll get atonement and go back to being Good." Why are negative and positive energies inexorably linked to Good and Evil (eg. which energy a Cleric channels depends on the alignment of the deity, Undead are inherently Evil, etc).


    Chess Pwn wrote:
    Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
    Chess Pwn wrote:
    So the character whose backstory was of selfless sacrifice, honor for life, and being an upstanding lawful citizen, wasn't LG? He was always the new alignment?
    No, he wasn't. He changed. People don't stay the same. Change happens, whether I you like it or not.

    So the guy has a dramatic alignment shift one day for little to no reason?

    I get if the guy started out LG and changed as he went. But if the players has him needlessly killing people from the get go... that's not really a change of the person's character is it?

    Unless the character had a backstory of needless killing, then he did, unquestionably, undergo a shift in personality.

    Whether it was sudden, or gradual over the course of days, months, or even years, is up to the player, but at some point between the character defining self-sacrifice and the beginning of the adventure, the character changed alignment.
    The reason for the personality shift is, likewise, up to the player it can be as in-depth and dramatic, or not, as the player wants.
    The only thing the player doesn't get to choose is his character's alignment right now, that's is always dictated by his character's actions.


    Nohwear wrote:
    If alignment is more of a cosmic litmus test, then it seems to me to be something that is more appropriate to a game where the cosmic war will,play a significant role.

    Well, that depends on the DM and the players. To (all full) Paladins, it is super important. To Chevaliers as well. To them Lawful Good is a source of real tangible power. It allows them to overcome fear, disease, it renders them faster (reflex), tougher (fortitude), and bolsters their willpower (will). It shields their mind from control. It allows them to crush evil and heal wounds. They draw power directly from the cosmic force.

    That is powerful stuff.

    To Monks order is important. It allows them to reach deeper states of enlightenment and power. It can protect them from disease, poisons, and even the ravages of time.

    To Druids Neutrality and balance is important. It is what allows them to unite with nature and the land.

    Quote:
    If it is meant to be a roleplaying aid, then I still think that another system would work better. If it is meant to be a way to know about someone at a glance, then it requires a more black and white world then I like.

    The world is more black and white than you think. A person who, for example, hates a certain race, like elves, who hunts and kills them without mercy because he sees them as invaders, but will gladly give his life, love, and kindness to people of his own race isn't "Good" no matter what he and his community thinks of him.

    A person who loves, protects, and is honest with his companions and friends but will murder, rib, lie to, and steal from people he doesn't like is likely not Lawful or Good.

    Alignment is a look at how the character acts. It is decided by the universe (GM) and is a constant.

    If I "Detect Evil" on someone and don't get a ping, then it likely (assuming they are high enough level to have an aura) means they aren't going to stab me in the back... Though they could be neutral and still might.

    If I "Detect Good" and get a ping then it is likely that the person isn't a Priest of Lamashtu. More importantly I know the person wouldn't knowingly kill an innocent.

    Alignment does reveal these things. It's not a subjective thing, it's an objective label.

    Don't think of Alignment in terms of real world morality. Think of it like a classification the universe assigns you based on your behaviors and actions.

    This label is only important if this label is important to your character and character class.

    To a Paladin, being Lawful Good is important. To a Monk being Lawful Something is important. To a Druid being neutral is important. To a Cleric living a life, and making choices, that their god or goddess would approve of is important. To a Barbarian being free and Chaotic is important.

    To a Fighter or Rogue? Meh. Probably less important.


    Quote:

    Alignment is a look at how the character acts. It is decided by the universe (GM) and is a constant.

    If I "Detect Evil" on someone and don't get a ping, then it likely (assuming they are high enough level to have an aura) means they aren't going to stab me in the back... Though they could be neutral and still might.

    If I "Detect Good" and get a ping then it is likely that the person isn't a Priest of Lamashtu. More importantly I know the person wouldn't knowingly kill an innocent.

    Alignment does reveal these things. It's not a subjective thing, it's an objective label.

    Not necessarily. I mean, it is decided based on their past actions, not their personality or actual mind-set. So, some people who would be Evil if given the opportunity are neutral or good simply because of circumstances leading to to not commit evil acts.

    Quote:
    A person who loves, protects, and is honest with his companions and friends but will murder, rib, lie to, and steal from people he doesn't like is likely not Lawful or Good.

    And thus it was declared all PC's are non-Lawful, and non-Good.


    Here goes again. Killing is not equivalent to murder. They aren't the same thing. Murder is a subset of killing but it is not the whole thing.


    Milo v3 wrote:
    And thus it was declared all PC's are non-Lawful, and non-Good.

    Are you for real mate?


    Boomerang Nebula wrote:
    Are you for real mate?

    Sorta, seems I forgot to bold the "rib" bit in my post. I've never heard of a PC that didn't at least tease NPC's they dislike.

    Also, I don't see why lawful people can't "murder, rib, lie to, or steal".


    Well that explains why I didn't get the joke!

    I think you are going too far with the murder part but for the others I can imagine situations where it would be acceptable for lawful good characters to: lie or steal.

    51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Cult of Personality: Misconceptions on Alignment All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.