Start to doubt alignment system.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
You can be chaotic and be honorable
Yeah, but generally not to such a character defining feature extent as the character described. Never ever ever ever breaking your code to that level is lawful.

We'll just have to disagree on that then.

Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
likewise just because something is a law/rule doesn't make it Lawful. A law is whatever the law is, you can have Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful laws.
Not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.... I didn't talk about or assume that lowercase law = Uppercase Law. If anything what I said was pro "lowercase law != Uppercase Law"....

Sorry, your post read otherwise to me.


Not addressed to anyone in particular, but I've always found THIS a helpful resource.


Rysky wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on that then.

Lawful neutral is "I live by my code and I'll die by my code." for a reason. If something like that doesn't qualify you as lawful, the only alternative would be that you need to be inevitable-level lawful to even have the lawful alignment.

Milo v3 wrote:
Sorry, your post read otherwise to me.

The character doesn't acknowledge lower case laws (except for the laws of his traditional code of conduct, which is part of the defintion of lawful neutral again "Tradition must continue."/"I am my own judge."), but I still think he's lawful.

Silver Crusade

No, that's just one interpretation of LN, not the only one.


Milo v3 wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

One of my big problems with alignment is the Law & Chaos axis. Specifically, how nebulous they are as concepts.

Here's an example:

Let's say we have a proud barbarian* warrior who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler of every settlement he enters. In his mind, people who have stopped living off the land are soft and thus not worthy of respect. However, he does have a code of honor which he follows, a code taught to him by his father which was passed down through generations of his tribe. This is a code of honor that he will not break for any reason, even if following it through to the bitter end would result in his death.

Is this barbarian of ours Lawful or Chaotic? I could honestly see it being argued both ways.

* Not necessarily the class

Sounds 99% lawful.

I think he sounds up to 66.6% chaotic. But I map chaotic onto "individualistic/free thinker" and lawful onto "collectivist/traditional." Not that you can't be a free thinking collectivist, but Karl Marx wasn't exactly typical.

The refusal to recognize legimacy of others for non-moral reasons strikes me as Chaotic. Having a code isn't lawful or chaotic, it's where it comes from. Is the code a family tradition that he decided to follow and is out of step with overall tribal mores? Somewhat chaotic. Is it a tribal code that has widespread popularity and it would be tough to act differently in that society? Lawful.

Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
We'll just have to disagree on that then.
Lawful neutral is "I live by my code and I'll die by my code." for a reason. If something like that doesn't qualify you as lawful, the only alternative would be that you need to be inevitable-level lawful to even have the lawful alignment.

I think Lawful Neutral is "I live by society's expected code." If you pick your own code that's Chaotic. Lawful people all follow the same/similar code (within a given nation/social grouping) because that's the right thing to do and you want to get along, Chaotic people can follow individual codes that don't always match up and can lead to conflict because they don't care if other people disagree with them.


Rysky wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

One of my big problems with alignment is the Law & Chaos axis. Specifically, how nebulous they are as concepts.

Here's an example:

Let's say we have a proud barbarian* warrior who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler of every settlement he enters. In his mind, people who have stopped living off the land are soft and thus not worthy of respect. However, he does have a code of honor which he follows, a code taught to him by his father which was passed down through generations of his tribe. This is a code of honor that he will not break for any reason, even if following it through to the bitter end would result in his death.

Is this barbarian of ours Lawful or Chaotic? I could honestly see it being argued both ways.

* Not necessarily the class

Sounds 99% lawful.
You can be chaotic and be honorable, likewise just because something is a law/rule doesn't make it Lawful. A law is whatever the law is, you can have Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful laws.

I don't see anything Chaotic in this character description. Law Is Not Legal, so ignoring the authority of some rulers has absolutely no bearing on his "Chaotic" status.

Seriously, sure, a Chaotic character can have a code (though this code is likely to be so intrinsically based in values that they would never need to feel conflicted in following it), but there is nothing in that description that sounds Chaotic to me.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I think Lawful Neutral is "I live by society's expected code."

I'm sorry, I love your username and your avatar, but this is flat-out wrong. Lawful alignment has nothing to do with society's codes. It's a matter of a personal code that might align with a society's code. One Lawful Good warrior might follow the legal law strictly, but another might think that legal law is a waste of time, and instead follow a strict code of conduct they create themselves.

Chaotic characters can have codes, but they aren't limited by them in the same way. A Chaotic character will break that code if they think it's getting in the way of moral or personal values. A Lawful character will hold to it, because to them, breaking that code would mean abandoning those moral or personal values long-term. A Lawful Good judge might insist on upholding the law even if it leads to a good person being fined or locked up, because in their mind, "If I make an exception here, it will lead to worse evil later." The Chaotic Good judge would say, "F&*! it, the intent of the law was clearly not to lock up a cool guy like you, you're pardoned!"

"Lawful" is about restricting yourself by an unchanging code. Chaotic is about living fluidly—if there is a code, it usually has to be fairly flexible. A chaotic character would really chafe under a rigid and detailed code with no room for interpretation.


A (chaotic) man chooses.
A (lawful) slave obeys.


Rysky wrote:
No, that's just one interpretation of LN, not the only one.

I was directly quoting Ultimate Campaign. While it's not the only interpretation (indeed it is different to the Core Rulebook interpretation), it is the most up to date interpretation that the game uses to define lawful neutral and generally it's best to use the most up to date source.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
I think Lawful Neutral is "I live by society's expected code." If you pick your own code that's Chaotic. Lawful people all follow the same/similar code (within a given nation/social grouping) because that's the right thing...

Not really. It says "I am my own judge." for a reason. Also, there is a difference between "I live by my code" (which can be any alignment) and "I live by a code handed down by tradition from father to son for generations, and (to quote the UC section on lawful neutral) never breaks it willingly and may become a martyr to defend it."

I mean, to a decent degree he is following societies expected code, it's just a code expected by a niche society. But nothing about being lawful requires you to live by the code of every society you go by and follow the laws of every city you enter. Lawful != law abiding.


Jubal Early had a code, but I wouldn't call him particularly lawful—it's hard to say with what little we see of him, but he seems like the sort of guy who would make a code he'd never have to truly break. Rule #1: Don't hurt people "unless the job requires it". Rule #2: Don't deliberately kill babies without a good reason. That sort of thing.

Captain Barbosa had a code, but I wouldn't call him super lawful, either—he treated the Code like "guidelines", something to sidestep whenever he could get away with it. He didn't actually see any major value in the Code itself, though he was willing to abide by it when it was convenient.

I had another example, but now it's eluding me. Maybe I'll remember it later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
<things and stuff>

Holy oop! Your alias isn't "Clever Kobold". All these years, out of the corner of my eye I've always been misreading that. Wow. Amazing how the human brain can "iconify" actual words.


not clever kobold just a kobold whose good with that sword he has ^


The closest to clever they'll ever get.


My take on the alignment thing is that it is useful to inscribe it on your character sheet for one necessary reason and one optional reason.

#1: Some rules are dependent on alignment. A lot of magic is alignment dependent.

#2: If you choose to not invest time and energy into creating your charater's backstory and belief system, then you can use your alignment as a short hand for this. I will say though, that players' who do this almost always end up seeing their character dissolve into an incoherent mess that creates un-necessary or undesirable inter-player conflict.

My suggestion is this. Choose a rulebook alignment. Tell your GM and fellow gamers what that alignment is. Then create a belief system for your character that informs the decision your character makes in-game. Discuss that with your GM and fellow gamers. Make sure the distinction you are making is clear to everyone.


I think if you're unhappy with your alignment too you should totally be allowed to change it. Fleshing out a character, personality, and motivations generally evolve, rather than be predetermined. Freedom to change helps this out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ClingClong wrote:
My suggestion is this. Choose a rulebook alignment. Tell your GM and fellow gamers what that alignment is. Then create a belief system for your character that informs the decision your character makes in-game. Discuss that with your GM and fellow gamers. Make sure the distinction you are making is clear to everyone.

Personally, I would recomend doing the opposite. First consider who your character is and what their life experiences to this point have been, and what they believe and value as a result of this. Then, if you absolutely must, choose an alignment that seems to accommodate this. But avoid making any references to your alignment directly unless prompted by something like "Detect Alignment" spells. Always consider what your character believes, values, dislikes, etc. before you consider what their alignment is.

If I can get away with it, I'll generally try to leave the alignment field on my character sheet blank even though I have a clear idea of what it would be, and not fill it in unless someone actually notices. I'm generally the player who spends the most time discussing ethics in character, so this can take some time.


Envall wrote:

A (chaotic) man chooses.

A (lawful) slave obeys.

Are there no women in this universe?

Community & Digital Content Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Sexist jokes really add nothing to the conversation.


RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive. Even for a paladin. Alignment doesn't prevent them from doing evil, but if they consistently do evil they will no longer be tat alignment. If you say of someone 'yeah, he's a good guy' are you saying he never does anything wrong? Conversely, you can say 'that s one evil dude' but he still might have. a thing for protecting children, love animals and love his mama. Alignment is a zip code not an address.

In practice, I have found this isn't true for Paladins.

When a Paladin PC is about to commit an evil act, the GM will normally say "hey, that is an evil act. If your character does that he falls and loses all his powers", then the player changes his actions.

Its pretty close to prescriptive.


Thunderrstar wrote:

Lawful is structure and stability, respect for traditions and honour, it does not involve following arbitrary laws as the laws are not in themselves lawful.

Chaos is arbitrary behaviour, randomness and tanking thing as they come up living for the present not the past or the future.

In practice these can be hard to distinguish from each other.

The Lawful Good dude says "this is an evil government. Its not legitimate and I won't follow its laws. I will follow my personal more code".

The Chaotic Good dude says the same thing.


Milo v3 wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

One of my big problems with alignment is the Law & Chaos axis. Specifically, how nebulous they are as concepts.

Here's an example:

Let's say we have a proud barbarian* warrior who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler of every settlement he enters. In his mind, people who have stopped living off the land are soft and thus not worthy of respect. However, he does have a code of honor which he follows, a code taught to him by his father which was passed down through generations of his tribe. This is a code of honor that he will not break for any reason, even if following it through to the bitter end would result in his death.

Is this barbarian of ours Lawful or Chaotic? I could honestly see it being argued both ways.

* Not necessarily the class

Sounds 99% lawful.

It also many chaotic good characters. Cayden has a code of honor he follows and in life he would turn down jobs that went against his principles.

In fact, its pretty much impossible to be good without some moral code.


Exactly. Moral code. A moral code is based on basic principles, not rigid guidelines.


God the arrogance of people, moral decisions cannot be codified in game rule terms. GMs don't know any better than their players; especially a paladin. Work with them on sticking to their code, don't try to pretend you understand the moral components of their actions better than they do.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Exactly. Moral code. A moral code is based on basic principles, not rigid guidelines.

Those aren't easy to separate.

IE "Tell the truth" is a moral code to many, but its also a "rigid guideline".


johnlocke wrote:
"Tell the truth" is a moral code to many

I don't think so. I think it's an important code to many, and I think they believe that it leads to good consequences. That's how Lawful Good works, after all—laws are a means to do good for such people.

But "Good"/"morality", in the game, is defined as being about not hurting people, and telling the truth hurts as often as it helps. It's ethical, not moral.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Pauses in the midst of what he was doing and briefly looks over the thread*

...We all know that the rules explicitly allow for many interpretations of the alignments, right? That is, two people can have different - and even somewhat contradictory - views of an alignment that are both completely valid?

In my games, I tend to accept a player's interpretation of their alignment as long as they can provide an explanation that's at least halfway plausible. XD


RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive.

Yeah, I watched that video too. Alignment is proscriptive as long as there are class features and other mechanics that require to you be / maintain a certain alignment.


Athaleon wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive.
Yeah, I watched that video too. Alignment is proscriptive as long as there are class features and other mechanics that require to you be / maintain a certain alignment.

No. THOSE CLASSES are proscriptive in regards to alignment which is a large difference.


RDM42 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive.
Yeah, I watched that video too. Alignment is proscriptive as long as there are class features and other mechanics that require to you be / maintain a certain alignment.
No. THOSE CLASSES are proscriptive in regards to alignment which is a large difference.

What difference are you possibly talking about?


Athaleon wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive.
Yeah, I watched that video too. Alignment is proscriptive as long as there are class features and other mechanics that require to you be / maintain a certain alignment.
No. THOSE CLASSES are proscriptive in regards to alignment which is a large difference.
What difference are you possibly talking about?

The only thing I can think of is that he's distinguishing between Alignment: the Concept and Alignment: the Mechanics. Which I can certainly get behind. Alignment becomes a lot more tolerable when you can outright ignore the whole entire thing. As long as not one single aspect of it gets enforced, it is indeed descriptive. But the very existence of "enforcing" of any kind makes it proscriptive.


If alignment wasn't descriptive then you wouldn't be able to change alignment.


Milo v3 wrote:
If alignment wasn't descriptive then you wouldn't be able to change alignment.

What? You change alignment when you do something incompatible with your current one, which is undesirable for many characters, hence it is proscriptive. It can be descriptive as well, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

And for what it's worth, I don't think it's a very good descriptor as well, given the endless (and timeless, and unresolvable) arguments over what it means to be good / lawful / whatever.


Milo v3 wrote:
If alignment wasn't descriptive then you wouldn't be able to change alignment.

For some classes, it tends to be descriptive for the character but prescriptive for the player.

Like, if I am a Paladin and my GM tells me I will lose my powers if I do X, I am not going to do X. Its not fun losing all my class abilities.


We are all clear that the allignment abstraction is not actually a system, right?


Athaleon wrote:
What? You change alignment when you do something incompatible with your current one, which is undesirable for many characters, hence it is proscriptive. It can be descriptive as well, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

If alignment is proscriptive you wouldn't be able to commit acts incompatible with your current one (I think you mean prescriptive rather than proscriptive). Just because a character changing their alignment might be bad in some cases doesn't make alignment innately proscriptive (especially since you can just retrain whichever option is the issue).


Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
What? You change alignment when you do something incompatible with your current one, which is undesirable for many characters, hence it is proscriptive. It can be descriptive as well, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
If alignment is proscriptive you wouldn't be able to commit acts incompatible with your current one (I think you mean prescriptive rather than proscriptive). Just because a character changing their alignment might be bad in some cases doesn't make alignment innately proscriptive (especially since you can just retrain whichever option is the issue).

I wasn't aware the retraining an entire class was a thing.


It is!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Character informs the alignment, not the other way around. Period. People who go on about how the "alignment system is too limiting" are interpreting the system to be way stricter than it's supposed to be.

Well, that's one side of it. However, there are still two ways in which alignment can be problematic:

1)As a descriptive subsystem, it is only useful if it actually describes characters. Many (most?) characters in literature that isn't directly derivative of D&D aren't neatly described by any of the nine Pathfinder alignments. Alignment doesn't necessarily hurt, in this sense, but it isn't necessarily a useful description.

The above assumes that you are using alignment as presented in the core rules. If you also throw in Horror Adventures, then as a description of characters, it becomes even less meaningful. A record of whether you cast three Protection from Law spells more recently than casting three Protection from Chaos spells is unhelpful in describing your character's ethical outlook or behavior. If alignment doesn't reflect something that people can care about for story purposes, then it's just a rather cumbersome way to decide the effects of a small handful of spells and magic items.

2)Even though alignment isn't supposed to be proscriptive, some people do get stuck in the trap of thinking it is. When combined with issue (1), the result is that some people feel trapped into only creating caricatures that fit one of the nine stereotypes. And while those people may misunderstand what alignment represents (as you pointed out), the fact is that this misconception does exist, and that it does hinder rich storytelling among groups in which at least one person holds this misconception.


Athaleon wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive.
Yeah, I watched that video too. Alignment is proscriptive as long as there are class features and other mechanics that require to you be / maintain a certain alignment.

Alignment itself does not determine your actions in any way but merely describes them. Some classes, on the other hand, are restricted to characters who maintain actions which are described by a specific alignment. The existence of classes with alignment restrictions attached does not make alignment force your actions. The class does.


Ventnor wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
What? You change alignment when you do something incompatible with your current one, which is undesirable for many characters, hence it is proscriptive. It can be descriptive as well, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
If alignment is proscriptive you wouldn't be able to commit acts incompatible with your current one (I think you mean prescriptive rather than proscriptive). Just because a character changing their alignment might be bad in some cases doesn't make alignment innately proscriptive (especially since you can just retrain whichever option is the issue).
I wasn't aware the retraining an entire class was a thing.

What I want to know is exactly how one goes about retraining an entire class into exactly that same class you were with all the same features and everything while being able to be the new alignment you now are when the changing of said alignment was the impetus for the necessity of the retraining in the first damned place.


By the power of wishful thinking?


RDM42 wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive.
Yeah, I watched that video too. Alignment is proscriptive as long as there are class features and other mechanics that require to you be / maintain a certain alignment.
Alignment itself does not determine your actions in any way but merely describes them. Some classes, on the other hand, are restricted to characters who maintain actions which are described by a specific alignment. The existence of classes with alignment restrictions attached does not make alignment force your actions. The class does.

It seems to me a distinction without a difference. It's a prescriptive system, which some classes are beholden to. If there was no mechanic to enforce alignment it wouldn't be such a problem.

That's quite besides the other problem, that alignment is not a good descriptor because as soon as you start thinking about any difficult problem (e.g. some question besides "is murder evil?") you will start to get differences of opinion, and the whole thing falls apart when people can't agree on definitions. That's fine for philosophers but it can be a problem when (say) a player and a DM disagree on whether a Monk should be allowed to take more Monk levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Alignment itself does not determine your actions in any way but merely describes them. Some classes, on the other hand, are restricted to characters who maintain actions which are described by a specific alignment. The existence of classes with alignment restrictions attached does not make alignment force your actions. The class does.

Class still isn't forcing your actions in this situation. That's like saying the law Forces you to not speed while driving just because there is a fine for doing. You can still do the action. Your alignment and class are not causing your actions, your alignment will change if your actions better fit a different alignment than the one you currently have, if that screws over a class that you liked... tough, pay the fine or go to a place where driving at that speed wont be illegal. But the law existing doesn't actually force your actions, sure it influences them but so does a billion other things.

Tectorman wrote:
What I want to know is exactly how one goes about retraining an entire class into exactly that same class you were with all the same features and everything while being able to be the new alignment you now are when the changing of said alignment was the impetus for the necessity of the retraining in the first damned place.

What are you talking about? I just said you could retrain your class, not "Retrain your class to your class and ignore the alignment restrictions". Please don't strawman me, it's rather rude.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

An alignment-restrictive class (paladin, hellknight, antipaladin, monk, barbarian, yadda yadda) requires the player to be able to define his actions to the GM and other players in light of the concepts of his required (or forbidden) alignments. A strictly self-disciplined Shoanti monk who accepts only his own structure of order and who believes that his choices require obligations can be very nearly identical to a fiercely independent Shoanti barbarian who lives and dies by his tribal code and his word of honor once given, but defies the external imposition of any restrictions or regulations. The former, Lawful; the latter, Chaotic. The concepts of their codes are almost identical, but it is the descriptive framing and how the proscriptions of 'Order' and 'Disorder' are viewed, approached, and accepted; it is the pure character mindset that defines whether one is a Lawful monk or a non-Lawful barbarian.

The monk says, "I live my life in a specific Way; I act with structure adn discipline. The Laws of Man are secondary to my Way, but I acknowledge that any actions of my Way that I undertake may will have consequences. No matter whether those consequences are beneficial, detrimental, or neutral towards myself, should I choose to undertake such actions, I must accept their consequences."

The barbarian says, "My clan has traditions, and these are vital to me, and I will abide by them. I will let no man make a slave of me, be it a slave of body or of mind, but my word is my bond and my honor, and I shall die before being foresworn. I know that should I choose to violate my clan's traditions I shall pay a price, but I will gladly pay that price if it means I uphold the honor of my clan and myself."


Milo v3 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
What I want to know is exactly how one goes about retraining an entire class into exactly that same class you were with all the same features and everything while being able to be the new alignment you now are when the changing of said alignment was the impetus for the necessity of the retraining in the first damned place.
What are you talking about? I just said you could retrain your class, not "Retrain your class to your class and ignore the alignment restrictions". Please don't strawman me, it's rather rude.

When John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to put a man on the moon within a decade, did anyone suggest "Well, we can't do that, but we can drive to Idaho"? No, of course not. Why? Because when the criterion for the solution are "man/on moon/within ten years", any so-called solution that does not fulfill those criterion is not a solution. And "play something else" is equally not a solution.

How is it a strawman to point that out?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[thesis statement]Alignment is not subjective in PFRPG.[/thesis statement]

Alignment wrote:

This game assumes good and evil are definitive things. Evidence for this outlook can be found in the indicated good or evil monster subtypes, spells that detect good and evil, and spells that have the good or evil descriptor. Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement. Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently. Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity. Having these qualities might not even cause the character to detect as evil when subjected to detect evil, as creatures possessing 4 or fewer Hit Dice do not register to the spell (with the exception of clerics or other characters that radiate an aura).

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

All creatures have an alignment and alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.

The intentions of the player directly affect the resulting determination of that act's influence of the character's alignment, this is demonstrated in the Antipaladin code of conduct:

Antipaladin Code of Conduct wrote:
This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends.

Emphases mine

tl;dr
The ends justify the means, by my interpretation of the alignment system.


Tectorman wrote:

When John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to put a man on the moon within a decade, did anyone suggest "Well, we can't do that, but we can drive to Idaho"? No, of course not. Why? Because when the criterion for the solution are "man/on moon/within ten years", any so-called solution that does not fulfill those criterion is not a solution. And "play something else" is equally not a solution.

How is it a strawman to point that out?

.... because ridiculousness like the above.... A paladin is not "Going to the moon", playing something else is not "Driving to Idaho". And it's not the games fault if your goal is "I want to go to the moon!" and then you decide to instead just dig into the earth. Alignment isn't forcing your actions, you can commit chaotic evil actions. And that wont always be "against concept", sometimes characters will want to fall or become a different class. But alignment isn't controlling your character's actions. It's not actually preventing the character from doing anything, it just happens that if you do have an alignment then there are ramifications for having that alignment.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
The ends justify the means, by my interpretation of the alignment system.

Your only evidence is that this is true of Evil Alignments. Which I'd agree with, even while strongly disagreeing that it's true of Good Alignments.

Indeed, the Paladin Code is strong evidence it isn't true of Good Alignments.


master_marshmallow wrote:
The ends justify the means, by my interpretation of the alignment system.

Wait, which ends? Which means?

That phrase is great rhetoric, but is useless in confronting the absolute nature of alignment.

51 to 100 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Start to doubt alignment system. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.