Ive stayed away from the paladin, Monk, and some others due to their alignement setups restriction actions.
For the Paladin, I dont know how I could play with that class as its too different for me to play as it is summarized as "Lawful Stupid".
The Monk on the other Is lawful, which I think I could play. I believe that is more about a sense of order than literal laws, so it might be a sense of moral code rather than obeying whatever laws are in effect.
I am making a Monk I am worried that an unfriendly GM will use a narrow definition of alignment to strip me of my special abilities as punishment for resisting railroading. That almost happened to my Druid once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're worried about this sort of thing just talk to your GM about how they interpret them.
For what its worth paladins shouldn't be played as Lawful Stupid.
And generally speaking lawful means orderly, not adherent to a specific nation's laws, though it could (Judge Dredd).
It's also worth noting a monk doesn't lose his abilities for becoming non-lawful, he just loses the ability to take more levels in monk. And, that can be remedied by paying for an atonement spell if it becomes an issue.
But I can't stress enough, for any class that has alignment restriction it's always best to talk to your GM first and get an idea of how they think and will run alignment with regard to your character.
Currently I'm playing in Hell's Vengeance, an evil aligned campaign and we have a party of 2 clerics of LE gods, and a Tyrant Antipaladin (among others). We haven't been mean to anyone, trying to resolve everything as amicably as we can (while still following the law). From the outside one might say we're being good, which would be a violation of my Antipaladins code. However, our GM understand that we're simply being nice because walking in and killing everyone isn't a very "good" plan. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. Our goal is prevent rebellion and get people to willingly comply with the laws, not to rack up a body count. But our GM understand that we're playing intelligently and not being "nice".
Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good or more interesting then the stereotypical(and fault-filled) Lawful Stupid or Stupid Evil.
You can play around and make your own code of conduct. You dont have to be charge out to fight every enemy or backstab your allies.
If you play it right then you may be an anti-hero or anti-villain that can do very different from what your alignment may imply. Noble Demon or Mischievous Hero.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid. It can be played that way. Literally every alignment can be played "Stupid".
You dont have to be charge out to fight every enemy
...Neither do Paladins, and definitely not anyone Lawful Good.
You can diplomacize, work together with evil to fight a greater evil (it even says it in the Code!), sneak around if your armor doesn't betray you, and do all sorts of things. You're only explicitly limited from using poison and committing evil acts as a Paladin.
The sticking point comes from what your GM considers "dishonorable". Some GMs are kinda pricks, but any reasonable GM will probably have a pretty loose view of that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignore alignment, because it's utterly f**king stupid.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped reading at "Paladin is summarized as Lawful Stupid"
I stopped reading at "Paladin is summarized as Lawful Stupid"
hey Id like to make an Anti-paladin but Pathfinder society games dont allow that.
generally speaking I pick neutral so i play as I want, not forced into being something I dont want to be or into situations that would get me killed rather than follow common sense.
Alignment seems more like an excuse for GMs to railroad players, either by saying its against your character or threats to activate clauses to suspend or remove abiltities.
A Paladin that loses its abilities is just a worse Fighter.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently I'm playing in Hell's Vengeance, an evil aligned campaign and we have a party of 2 clerics of LE gods, and a Tyrant Antipaladin (among others). We haven't been mean to anyone, trying to resolve everything as amicably as we can (while still following the law). From the outside one might say we're being good, which would be a violation of my Antipaladins code. However, our GM understand that we're simply being nice because walking in and killing everyone isn't a very "good" plan. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. Our goal is prevent rebellion and get people to willingly comply with the laws, not to rack up a body count. But our GM understand that we're playing intelligently and not being "nice".
You don't. :)
There is a good paladin guide by Bhodi (I believe). It goes into a bunch of ways to play paladins including the "holy pain" which is his description if Lawful Stupid.
I'm pretty sure that any GM who will screw with you for playing a paladin will have been looking for a way to screw you regardless. There is no need to be an idiot if you play LG and even less need to put sadistic choices in the path if every paladin that graces your table.
Excuse my typos, please. Posting from a phone doesn't always lead to the right autocorrect choice.
This thread is borderline advice now.
Ok So what to do about a GM that uses alignment restrictions as punishment or control?
Paladin is the extreme, but Monk is something I might be able to actually play. Lawful Neutral may be better than Chaotic Neutral.
What Deity are you using as your Paladin?
There are infinite variations upon each alignment. Lawful-Chaos and Good-Evil is like the core theme, a skeleton that is shared, despite differing bodies.
Pretty poetic for a moment there...
Lawful Neutral is consistent, likely polite, and respectful. ALWAYS obey your superiors, your loyalty is your strength. As a monk, you may practice your self-dicispline to hone and perfect your body. Or you may train yourself to serve the law of the land. You believe in spreading order, and may preach to chaos (which could get you kicked out) or you may subtly guide them. If you protect strangers, it's because you have to, not want to.
You are not necessarily beholden to rulers, merely their provided security and stability for you and your loved ones. You respect and love tradition, and if you don't have some, will try to establish new ones for future generations.
Most LN share these traits, but are all unique. Some are more violent, others subtle and diplomatic. The biggest variations are the traditions you follow.
'Lawful Stupid' isn't a summary of the Paladin class, it's a summary of how some very simplistic, shallow players play it (or how some even more simplistic, shallow GM's expect it to be played). The 'code' is a mostly subjective thing; it's a rare instance of mechanical rules seriously colliding with roleplaying and flavor. It's about a Paladin's relationship with their deity, and so it comes down to how a GM interprets it (since they're representing all facets of the game world). In conflict cases, Good should be prioritized over Lawful (after all, Paladins don't Smite Chaos, they Smite Evil).
It's only when you have a GM who clearly derives some kind of pathetic pleasure out of invoking 'Smite Paladin' that you should just avoid the class completely.
Lawful Good is only lawful stupid if you think that the greatest good is found in Law and Order/The best for a lawful existence is to be beneficial and kind, is being stupid. If that is your GM's perspective while playing the game then don't do it [insert south park meme about bad times, and how you will have them]
But overall Lawful Good is definitely a challenge, more so with Paladins i feel, even more so if you personally aren't Lawful Good. This will never work if neither you or the GM like having codes of honor/thought/action to follow. That's enough about paladins though.
If your intend to play a LN Monk you should prepare yourself to be a but less than concerned with anything the NG plays feel is a good reason to do things. Saving children from wild animals isn't necessarily a reason to leave your duties and responsibilities, but something being against your code of action or something that offends Order and Law would be more so (such as a person committing a crime)
Maybe all of this is actually useless to you, hard to say. You should definitely try to talk to your GM away from the table about this because it is unlikely you will get what you want out of the conversation if the whole party is chiming in/waiting patiently to move on.
Ignore alignment, because it's utterly f**king stupid.
I'm just going to use Sarenrae as an example of 'Just because I'm Lawful Good doesn't mean I'm Lawful Stupid'. Her tenets are extremely flexible and aid well to a supportive Paladin.
Protect your Allies - the whole core concept of your class is to help your allies. If you aren't than you're not doing your class right.
Her second Tenet stats 'If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find allies.' You don't have to be one of THOSE people who fights alone by himself, it encourages you to find allies instead of fighting alone. After all "If I die, I can no longer fight."
Personally, I feel 'PRAISE THE SUN!' the easiest Deity to play with, but there are other Tenets you can review as a Paladin to see if they line up to your playstyle.
Erastil is more Lawful Stupid, but even then he is much less so than others. "When danger threatens, I am not a fool. I seek first to make sure the weak and innocent are safe, and then I quell the danger." - Save People the quell danger, not stab it with a pointy thing until it dies.
Iomedae is a good example of a Paladin Code that doesn't go to far. "LET US FIGHT TO THE DEATH! THIS IS SPARTA!" No hidden tricks, no special agenda. Fair and honorable combat, everything else is fair game within alignment.
In light: party-revel-enjoy life. Just because you are Good at heart and are Lawful to the world, does not mean you will blindly follow nor does it mean your heart will bleed with every sob story.
As people have all said before me: Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid, and there are as many types of Paladins as there are shades of Grey.
I understand morals are by definition not universal. So as a DM I need the player to tell me why their actions are lawful or good at times. If they can define their actions within their code of law or good I accept that.
Lawful does not mean you are forced to obey every law. Now paladins have a code that specifically states "respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
So they have to define further that if they break a law, why? If they can provide reasonable explanation on how their character does not think the law is lawful, and legitimacy of the authority they are disrespecting.
Alignment should not be the DMs understand of what they think all good or lawful should do, but the PCs understand of what are the rules and what is altruistic.
If you have a controlling GM that insists you play a paladin as Lawful Stupid in PFS, report to their venture officer.
|
|
Do not expect to behave as say Chaotic Neutral (Evil not allowed in PFS) and pass it off as Lawful Good
Most GMs will not let that fly and that would not be using alignment to railroad the character
Understand what Lawful Good is about and be truly creative on how to play what you consider a fun PC within the constraints of the ethos
And if it ends up being too complicated to reconcile, just do not play Lawful Good ;-)
the neutral alignments interest me.
Lawful Neutral is a generally Orderly but could be able to interpreted as stick to its own code. This could also be used as a fault in which Order is more important than freedom or good.
Chaotic Neutral is about Chaos/Freedom as a general rule. a Cleric of Desna is one of my Characters.
You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
If you really want to catch flies, I recommend rotting fish, sitting in rancid water, coated with Fly Bait (a commercial product used to poison flies).
Currently I'm playing in Hell's Vengeance, an evil aligned campaign and we have a party of 2 clerics of LE gods, and a Tyrant Antipaladin (among others). We haven't been mean to anyone, trying to resolve everything as amicably as we can (while still following the law). From the outside one might say we're being good, which would be a violation of my Antipaladins code. However, our GM understand that we're simply being nice because walking in and killing everyone isn't a very "good" plan. You catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. Our goal is prevent rebellion and get people to willingly comply with the laws, not to rack up a body count. But our GM understand that we're playing intelligently and not being "nice".You don't. :)
This is true and I'm aware of that very XKCD, and even thought about it while making my post. However, the point of the expression remains despite it not being technically accurate.
But is that in keeping with your alignment?
I can think of Lawful Good as one of 3 types.
1 Marty Sue character that always follows the rules because the rules are always beneficial.
2 Stupid stupid Knight in Shining Armor with little to no common sense.
3 "I am the Law" Knight Templar that is an extremist but well intentioned. Easily falls into lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil through actions.
Judge Dredd is an interesting character as while he follows the Law, its only most of the time. He is closer to Justice Incarnate, so Good is more important than Law. The Sylvester Stallone movie just brought a bad impression, almost a parody. Neutral Good.
Ive stayed away from the paladin, Monk, and some others due to their alignement setups restriction actions.
For the Paladin, I dont know how I could play with that class as its too different for me to play as it is summarized as "Lawful Stupid".
The Monk on the other Is lawful, which I think I could play. I believe that is more about a sense of order than literal laws, so it might be a sense of moral code rather than obeying whatever laws are in effect.
I am making a Monk I am worried that an unfriendly GM will use a narrow definition of alignment to strip me of my special abilities as punishment for resisting railroading. That almost happened to my Druid once.
Play a TN/NG monk if the alignment is too tough for you. Also available here and here.
For paladins, if every GM in your area insists they be played Lawful Stupid, don't play a paladin. Play an Inquisitor, Warpriest, Cleric, Cavalier, or any other of the number of substitutions that accomplish "paladin" themes wihout having an annoyingly restrictive code of conduct. If you aren't comfortable coming up with a paladin which isn't lawful stupid for one reason or another it probably isn't a good fit for you.
Play a TN/NG monk if the alignment is too tough for you. Also available here and here.
For paladins, if every GM in your area insists they be played Lawful Stupid, don't play a paladin. Play an Inquisitor, Warpriest, Cleric, Cavalier, or any other of the number of substitutions that accomplish "paladin" themes wihout having an annoyingly restrictive code of conduct. If you aren't comfortable coming up with a paladin which isn't lawful stupid for one reason or another it probably isn't a good fit for you.
#1 Unchained monk, should have specified, so Archetypes dont work. If they ever allowed an Unchained Zen Archer I would be all over it.
#2 That is (one reason) why Ive avoided the Paladin. Easier to be a Cleric of Desna than a paladin.
The trait works for UMonk just like it works for regular monk (can be gained via adopted).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But is that in keeping with your alignment?
I can think of Lawful Good as one of 3 types.
1 Marty Sue character that always follows the rules because the rules are always beneficial.
2 Stupid stupid Knight in Shining Armor with little to no common sense.
3 "I am the Law" Knight Templar that is an extremist but well intentioned. Easily falls into lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil through actions.Judge Dredd is an interesting character as while he follows the Law, its only most of the time. He is closer to Justice Incarnate, so Good is more important than Law. The Sylvester Stallone movie just brought a bad impression, almost a parody. Neutral Good.
There is a term called 'Conformation Bias' which means "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it."
That is what you are doing here. You have deiced that Lawful Good is stupid, so you are only accepting information that agrees that Lawful Good is stupid. There is plenty of information available, both published by Paizo and attached to stories about Lawful Good in general, which portrays it differently, yet you seem dead set on ignoring everything that contradicts your preconceived idea.
While it is perfectly acceptable to not enjoy playing an alignment, or to not like the alignment system in general, as long as you refuse to examine ALL the information provided there is little point in anyone responding to your questions about how to play the Lawful Good alignment.
As to your original question about how to play around alignment restrictions, my opinion is you should avoid any class that has them completely, as you would only be frustrated by them.
Alignment is a stupid rule that grows increasingly stupid as more supplements are released. I whole-heartedly suggest completely forgetting it even exists.
Alignment is a stupid rule that grows increasingly stupid as more supplements are released. I whole-heartedly suggest completely forgetting it even exists.
I'm pretty confident that only chaotic people feel this way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a stupid rule that grows increasingly stupid as more supplements are released. I whole-heartedly suggest completely forgetting it even exists.I'm pretty confident that only chaotic people feel this way.
Are you sure? Have you cast Protection from Law 5 times and checked for yourself?
Alignment is a stupid rule that grows increasingly stupid as more supplements are released. I whole-heartedly suggest completely forgetting it even exists.I'm pretty confident that only chaotic people feel this way.
I summoned and enslaved five archons to do my bidding... That means I'm 100% Lawful Good!!! It's official now!
Bhodi's guide to the paladin was mentioned above, but I don't think it was linked yet: Link.
This has several suggestions for ways to play paladins. Chaosticket, some of them correspond to the types you mentioned, but there definitely are other ways to play LG. You don't have to play around alignment restrictions (as you asked in the threat title). Instead, I suggest you ask yourself how you could play within alignment restrictions.
My favorite paladin type is the humble, semi-martyr, reluctant one. He bas been blessed with divine power to do a job, he sees this as a duty, not an honor he has received. Because he can/ will go into the darkness to face evil, others don't have to. Ignoring the monsters and going back to the farm/ shop/ fishing hole sounds great to him, but he doesn't because that would force someone else to face the danger.
You can have a lot of fun with a cynical, world-weary, dismissive and sarcastic Paladin; what matters is that in the end they do the right thing, and don't cross any actual lines in their conduct. Their superficial personality traits and overall 'character' should be more or less irrelevant, unless a GM can't distinguish between the 'packaging' and the 'product'. I have a feeling that that particular cognitive failing is on the rise these days...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ignore alignment, because it's utterly f**king stupid.
It is not utterly stupid. It's a mechanic that some players and groups work well with and others don't. Using it is not any more stupid than making a choice to use one game system over another.
The problem with expressing things the way you do is the imputation that people who don't agree with you are *utterly f**king stupid."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone who I've seen say the Alignment mechanic is stupid is the type of person who says "Cut out his tongue, break his fingers, and blind him because he MIGHT be a Mage" person.
Aka: CE who doesn't like being labeled.
Everyone who I've seen say the Alignment mechanic is stupid is the type of person who says "Cut out his tongue, break his fingers, and blind him because he MIGHT be a Mage" person.
Aka: CE who doesn't like being labeled.
What alignment is someone who makes sweeping generalizations? And how many castings of Protection from Whatever will fix it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What alignment is someone who makes sweeping generalizations? And how many castings of Protection from Whatever will fix it?Everyone who I've seen say the Alignment mechanic is stupid is the type of person who says "Cut out his tongue, break his fingers, and blind him because he MIGHT be a Mage" person.
Aka: CE who doesn't like being labeled.
Lawful Evil, and who says I wan't to fix it? ^-^
I believe people are either being very open to what alignments actually mean but generally against narrow thoughts.
a paladin is just the example as if you stop being mostly good then you can fall into Lawful neutral and lose your powers. Or you can decide the Laws are too restrictive and/or Corrupt and be neutral good and lose your powers.
Gods allow their followers close alignments, which is very important for Clerics, and Inquisitors, but not Paladins oddly. Desna is a Chaotic Good God. So long as you are not overly lawful or evil its Ok.
Edit: Alignement is a general representation of how a person acts in the overall world, so a "Good devil" would be plotting to kill people to increase in rank. To the world at large that is lawful Evil.
Paladins get the short end of the stick. If they just had to be Good, that would be a huge improvement.
But This wasnt about a paladin originally. That is just what people latched onto. Its the Lawful Monk that I want to see. In a lose interpretation i would say a Monk would follow its own code of conduct, not necessarily what the public may have. That doesnt leave many options for any kind of rebellious Monk as that would be hypocritical. More like a Spock type character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe people are either being very open to what alignments actually mean but generally against narrow thoughts.
a paladin is just the example as if you stop being mostly good then you can fall into Lawful neutral and lose your powers. Or you can decide the Laws are too restrictive and/or Corrupt and be neutral good and lose your powers.
Gods allow their followers close alignments, which is very important for Clerics, and Inquisitors, but not Paladins oddly. Desna is a Chaotic Good God. So long as you are not overly lawful or evil its Ok.
Edit: Alignement is a general representation of how a person acts in the overall world, so a "Good devil" would be plotting to kill people to increase in rank. To the world at large that is lawful Evil.
Paladins get the short end of the stick. If they just had to be Good, that would be a huge improvement.
But This wasnt about a paladin originally. That is just what people latched onto. Its the Lawful Monk that I want to see. In a lose interpretation i would say a Monk would follow its own code of conduct, not necessarily what the public may have. That doesnt leave many options for any kind of rebellious Monk as that would be hypocritical. More like a Spock type character.
But what if MY laws that I follow from my Deity contradict with the laws of the land? Just because I'm Lawful doesn't mean I'm YOUR Lawful. I follow the code and rules given to me. If my God demands I free slaves, but the land belongs to Asmodeus, then what is the unlawful act? Adhering to my Deity's wishes? Or submitting to Asmodeus and forsaking my code of honor?
Things like this aren't as black and white as your portray it. Just because I'm following the laws of my Lawful Good Deity in a Lawful Evil area where my tenets are against the local law, does not mean I'm unlawful. It simply means that the rules of my deity are more demanding than the rules of any kingdom, and you're more likely to fall for ignoring your deity's commands than ignoring the kings command.
If you're wondering about the monk, I suggest reading Irori's tenets. They are very neutral and very lawful. Follow your own code of honor set by you through Irori's path.
Are you sure? Have you cast Protection from Law 5 times and checked for yourself?Alignment is a stupid rule that grows increasingly stupid as more supplements are released. I whole-heartedly suggest completely forgetting it even exists.I'm pretty confident that only chaotic people feel this way.
The law alone is sufficient to protect me - particularly against other beings of law - why would I ever need to memorize, and therefore cast, that spell?
But what if MY laws that I follow from my Deity contradict with the laws of the land? Just because I'm Lawful doesn't mean I'm YOUR Lawful. I follow the code and rules given to me. If my God demands I free slaves, but the land belongs to Asmodeus, then what is the unlawful act? Adhering to my Deity's wishes? Or submitting to Asmodeus and forsaking my code of honor?
Things like this aren't as black and white as your portray it. Just because I'm following the laws of my Lawful Good Deity in a Lawful Evil area where my tenets are against the local law, does not mean I'm unlawful. It simply means that the rules of my deity are more demanding than the rules of any kingdom, and you're more likely to fall for ignoring your deity's commands than ignoring the...
Well you just answered your own question by asking, what if your laws are different than law in general.
a Demon that follows its own laws is backstabbing and self-destructive.
A Devil on the other hand keeps to its agreements. They both follow "laws" of their people.
Hellknights believe in Law and order above all else, and that results in Good for Society.
Youre getting into the area of Order Vs Law. Laws can view all over the place. You could have laws that eating meat on certain days is worthy of being executed.
Alice in Wonderland had so many laws that make sense to nobody from a linear world.
Lawful Evil, and who says I wan't to fix it? ^-^What alignment is someone who makes sweeping generalizations? And how many castings of Protection from Whatever will fix it?Everyone who I've seen say the Alignment mechanic is stupid is the type of person who says "Cut out his tongue, break his fingers, and blind him because he MIGHT be a Mage" person.
Aka: CE who doesn't like being labeled.
Ah, but is someone who makes sweeping generalizations not Chaotic because they don't follow a rigorous application of logic? After all, it is a non-sequitur to say that "some X are Y, therefore all X are Y". And they might not necessarily be evil, if their only fault is (what amounts to) intellectual carelessness.
You see how ridiculous this is? The fact that alignment breaks down the moment you think too hard about it makes it, as Zhayne put it, utterly f#+~ing ridiculous. It's bad enough that it exists to make sweeping generalizations (about individual characters, or about all characters of a given alignment), but even worse, game mechanics are tied to it: The classic examples are the Paladin or Druid getting whacked with the suck-bat if they have an alignment disagreement with the DM. It's even worse now that alignment itself is a game mechanic with a score. Was the verbal component of Protection from Evil "Hail Mary, full of grace, our Lord is with thee" this whole time?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The measure of a game mechanic is not how it fails with munchkin players or malicious DMs. Because you can't design a game to cushion against those who are determined to abuse it.
Fact of the matter is, there are gamers and groups who function well with alignment or it would not have endured for 4 decades.
It is also true that there are groups who have either ditched alignment in their D20 based games or have moved onto other ames not bound by either alignment or as much crunch.
Both of these groups are right.