All rules are optional.This is a falsehood when it's not YOU DMing and making the setting.
Eh, less a falsehood but more a difference in experience. I can count the number of games that play exclusively by the rules with no variations from the book at all on less than one hand across a number of systems and too many years.
I will agree that it makes it hard to find a game. This is why I GM most of the time.
Are you done though? Really? Alignment never ends!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment.
The "keep alignment" argument is just that - leave alignment-based gameplay in place, present removing it as an option for people who want that, don't have PFS mandate no alignments or adventure paths expect it. For most games, it is then a choice of "keep alignment, keep alignment but remove alignment mechanics, remove alignment" with no substantial redesigning or customization. Just that one decision that's simple enough for a vote or something.
The "remove alignment" argument, as many people are presenting it, requires taking away the framework for that system. Not just listing one before the other in the CRB, but making it so people who want alignment mechanics will have to homebrew all the spells, archetypes, rituals, monster abilities, etc that they think should use it, AS WELL AS finding a group of players who are on board with that AND agree on the precise implementations. To save the anti-alignment crowd the trouble of "hey guys can we try a game without alignments".
This is the essence of the compromise problem. It's the difference between "there's a red house on this sign, but you can paint your house red or blue" and "you can paint your house red or blue, but red paint is now illegal, so you'd have to find a black-market paint salesman or make your own paint, because we like blue better."
Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment.
Is it? Seems equally viable either way.
The "remove alignment" argument, as many people are presenting it, requires taking away the framework for that system.
Not really: you can have the framework in the back of the books: alignment rules, spells, ect. Then straightforward list of X has Y alignment of you use it. You list monsters and such alphabetically in the books, so is it unthinkable to also list them with a [alignment] in the list? It's merely a shift in location so I don't see an 'easier' argument.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment.Is it? Seems equally viable either way.
The "remove alignment" argument, as many people are presenting it, requires taking away the framework for that system.Not really: you can have the framework in the back of the books: alignment rules, spells, ect. Then straightforward list of X has Y alignment of you use it. You list monsters and such alphabetically in the books, so is it unthinkable to also list them with a [alignment] in the list? It's merely a shift in location so I don't see an 'easier' argument.
The suggestion floated in this thread - would still make alignment something you put on a sheet - that mechanically interacts with spells, outsiders, and other such things.
It would, however, make your character immune to any 'your powers no longer work' rules, unless you agreed to them ahead of time or were invested in telling that story with the GM.
This is the compromise - leaving the actual skeleton of the system, the meat of the mechanics, and all the trappings through the entire system, just taking the 'your character now sucks' lever away from GM's - and giving it to the players.
I've gone over in detail why making them optional is better for the players - because it forces the conversation about if alignment will be a factor in the game prior to the game start, and allows someone to bow out before investing in the game.
Something I've learned and grown with over the past decade, has been the idea that people who are introverted, or hurt, or have had bad past experiences, are not always able to communicate these things to someone else. When delving into matters that are personal, such as subjective morality, it is important to set expectations prior to the game start. Having a 'please talk to your table' isn't good enough for everything. The social contract should start with contentious rules as an option that can be included with consent, never as a default that requires a potentially vulnerable person to bring the idea up in the first place.
Such a simple thing as making alignment optional, which broadcasts the intent of the table ahead of play, can make the game more welcome. Something that many in here that vigorously arguing for alignment to not change also seem to miss, is that it also means that if the GM declares they are using alignment, then there will no longer be a string of 'jerk GM' comments in every alignment thread, because that happens also.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment.
The "keep alignment" argument is just that - leave alignment-based gameplay in place, present removing it as an option for people who want that, don't have PFS mandate no alignments or adventure paths expect it. For most games, it is then a choice of "keep alignment, keep alignment but remove alignment mechanics, remove alignment" with no substantial redesigning or customization. Just that one decision that's simple enough for a vote or something.
The "remove alignment" argument, as many people are presenting it, requires taking away the framework for that system. Not just listing one before the other in the CRB, but making it so people who want alignment mechanics will have to homebrew all the spells, archetypes, rituals, monster abilities, etc that they think should use it, AS WELL AS finding a group of players who are on board with that AND agree on the precise implementations. To save the anti-alignment crowd the trouble of "hey guys can we try a game without alignments".
This is the essence of the compromise problem. It's the difference between "there's a red house on this sign, but you can paint your house red or blue" and "you can paint your house red or blue, but red paint is now illegal, so you'd have to find a black-market paint salesman or make your own paint, because we like blue better."
That is not the “remove alignment” argument I’m familiar with. As far as I’ve seen, removing alignment as the default does exactly and only that: makes alignment and alignment-based mechanics something that IS already written out and codified (i.e., not something that anyone has to houserule just to bring them into existence), just something that isn’t imposed on innocent and unsuspecting players by default. Something that, yes, has to be negotiated for and agreed to BEFORE its just assumed to be in the game.
Just like how Horror Adventures included all that text about how none of those disturbing themes were to be just lumped onto an innocent and unsuspecting player’s head before you got their explicit (no, not implied or assumed) consent. The existence of horror as a genre element or game theme is no one’s assumed permission to just lord it over everyone else at the table, their own feelings be damned, yet a player is always expected to have to brace themselves for whatever assault on their own values on morality and ethics gets thrown their way all because they committed the unforgivable and grievous sin of being interested in playing the cool martial artist class and not buying into its Insane Troll Logic connection to being lawful?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jesus the hyperbole is pretty thick here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is truly odd is that Alignment in Starfinder was dialed back a fair deal... and it really hasn't impacted play all that much from what I've been able to see.
The Infamy metric added by PFS seems to handle any excesses beyond the 'dialed back' alignment.
I also haven't heard any arguments or discussions coming up from Starfinder about 'Well, since my GM made my class code conflict with the alignment morality trap he built, I lost it all' or 'The players in my campaign are abusing alignment'.
...which are things which can and have happened in PF1 with a restrictive and focused alignment system. We have *MANY* threads on these forums (and elsewhere) detailing these sorts of things.
I know which I'd rather deal with at the end of the day when I'm running a table.
Jesus the hyperbole is pretty thick here.
I agree. All you have to do is make alignment based on intent and all of the problems go away. If being good means you have to take risks to prevent the deaths of innocent beings and you take action X, which results in the deaths of innocent beings, the DM simply has to ask, was it your intention to take risks to prevent the deaths of innocent beings, despite this outcome? If the answer is "yes," then there is no alignment shift. Simple.
I've been doing Good/Evil like this for as long as I can remember, though my Lawful/Chaotic definitions have changed over time, and I have yet to have a player complain that they were railroaded. I would print my alignment test here, but last time I got complaints about the wall of text. Suffice to say, there has never been any confusion among my players about what it meant to have an alignment, so they always start with the alignment that best describes their intentions and, as long as they keep those same intentions, nothing they do (even if dominated or they go insane) changes their alignments. There has been surprise about what was permitted under the alignment rules while still retaining a Good or Lawful alignment, but I don't like alignment to be a straight-jacket, so I'm happy with that.
How is it that the sides that are open-minded and willing to accept more options always seems to take it on the chin from the folks who are refusing such?
Especially with an open-minded and encouraging of different playstyles company and their product?
Less restrictive = better for everyone.
Restrictions can be added later, by GMs.
Build the framework, and let the GMs flesh it in.
Have we NOT evolved in our maturity and gaming playstyle in forty years?
Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.
And also adopt 'take it or leave it' mentalities.
So that is fair, I guess.
Alignment isn't the system we all want, but it's the system we deserve, then?
And also adopt 'take it or leave it' mentalities.
Another thing that hasn’t changed much, sadly.
So that is fair, I guess.
Alignment isn't the system we all want, but it's the system we deserve, then?
I think it’s the system some of us want.
I don’t envy Paizo this kind of issue. With PF1 they had the excuse of backwards compatibility. That brought its own problems too, of course, but it did mean they could always leave things “as is” with reasonable comfort.
This time around they have the luxury of being given a more or less clean slate - nothing is off limits. But that means anything they choose to retain is more deliberate than perhaps it was last time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.
Saying that the Tabletop gamers is more mature than your standard videogamer is at best a pretentious statement from my experience. Oh the time wasted on endless arguments about game mechanics in a game of pretend.
Still one of the things of why there is discussion around whats going in the rules is basically trying to have things work consistent from one game to another. With your established groups the rulings can be lightend and twisted for the need of the group, but if you are a "group hopper" or have multiply groups i can understand the need for consitency between games.
So for a mechanic that is a part of the "default" package of D&D i find it weird its so heavily enforced compared to how vague the entire concept is.
Saying that the Tabletop gamers is more mature than your standard videogamer is at best a pretentious statement from my experience.
Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.
I’m really struggling to see how that relates to my post. Did you quote me by mistake maybe? Video gamers weren’t anywhere in my mind when I made that remark. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m really struggling to see how that relates to my post. Did you quote me by mistake maybe? Video gamers weren’t anywhere in my mind when I made that remark. :/Saying that the Tabletop gamers is more mature than your standard videogamer is at best a pretentious statement from my experience.
Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.
My apologies, it should have been accopanied by the 2nd line, and a continuation of the snarkiness around "People who dont agree with me are immature", and that its pretty much the same mindset you see in videogames. ( or any opinionated community for that matter )
Ahh, gotcha. Cheers.
Pretty sure we agree (I have had zero contact with computer game culture since WOW killed my MUD. *sniff*). :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably young, not dumb:
Basically Zork with lots of other people. When WoW came out, all the cool kids left. :(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is truly odd is that Alignment in Starfinder was dialed back a fair deal... and it really hasn't impacted play all that much from what I've been able to see.The Infamy metric added by PFS seems to handle any excesses beyond the 'dialed back' alignment.
I also haven't heard any arguments or discussions coming up from Starfinder about 'Well, since my GM made my class code conflict with the alignment morality trap he built, I lost it all' or 'The players in my campaign are abusing alignment'.
...which are things which can and have happened in PF1 with a restrictive and focused alignment system. We have *MANY* threads on these forums (and elsewhere) detailing these sorts of things.
I know which I'd rather deal with at the end of the day when I'm running a table.
I really don't see Starfinder as compatible on this. It's a genre thing. Forces of cosmic morality, honor or hatred made manifest and granting magical protection or strength, noble and heroic knights fighting ultimate evils, that's high fantasy stuff - aka reasonable for people to expect to be enabled by the Pathfinder system. Alignment is relevant.
Lovable rogues who everyone understands to be reliable if sometimes reluctant or misrepresented allies, upstanding and respected commanders and politicians, feared bounty hunters, and intimidating aliens of superhuman martial prowess are more the norm for space opera. Hence, infamy is more relevant, so that's the more used system for Starfinder. Alignment generally would not be seen as relevant as much anyway, I would suspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically Zork with lots of other people. When WoW came out, all the cool kids left. :(
All the cool kids may be gone, but the scene's still clinging to life support. I am trying to develop my own MUD based on my Shroompunk setting... trying to design something that combines permadeath with PVP and makes it work.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is truly odd is that Alignment in Starfinder was dialed back a fair deal... and it really hasn't impacted play all that much from what I've been able to see.
Alignment was dialed back in Starfinder so much that it was one of the main reasons I lost interest and stopped playing it. I’m definitely not the only one who it was a nail in the coffin for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. We still label people who play differently from us “immature”.
How is it that the sides that are open-minded and willing to accept more options always seems to take it on the chin from the folks who are refusing such?
Especially with an open-minded and encouraging of different playstyles company and their product?
Less restrictive = better for everyone.
Restrictions can be added later, by GMs.
Build the framework, and let the GMs flesh it in.
Have we NOT evolved in our maturity and gaming playstyle in forty years?
At it's heart - this suggestion is meant to protect the more immature gamers who might be just entering the hobby - from having an experience that drives them away.
Like many things - the deep end of the pool shouldn't be where everyone learns to swim. We evolve from 'sink or swim' to 'try the wading pool first' - and for some odd reason - having a wading pool, and a shallow end of the pool, doesn't stop someone from using the deep end first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First thing I'd like to say: Really? The nail in the coffin for starfinder was Alignment? Huh... My nail in the coffin was a lack of "Dragon Eats Spaceship" as there were very little rules support for truly powerful creatures to attack ships.
Second thing: I noticed something while reading over this thread again. So, I thought I'd ask. Does anyone here run what they consider a "black and white" game anymore? A game in which there is an invading force, now defend your home, your family, and your neighbor? Or a monster hunter styled "hunt the beast of the week?" Because I feel these kinds of games sidestep the alignment problem wholeheartedly and were the backbone of the RPG movement in the day. The roots so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last couple of non-PFS campaigns I was in, the grey was everywhere. Made for a great story, but thank goodness we didn't have any paladins (by GM request, because they would have been FAR too divisive in an alignment-based system).
And yes, those involved 'seemingly' 'black and white' 'defend the community' type situations, sometimes with extrapolations of 'The Trolley Question' tied in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that wanting to play a CE Paladin of Ragathiel who torches barns full of pregnant women so that none of their children grows up to be Evil is entitled.
It's deranged, twisted and contrarian, but not entitled.
First - this is a strawman as no one has argued for this.
Second - this is impossible using the suggested compromise as sated.
Third - I agree with this, however I'm unsure how it adds to the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yet a player is always expected to have to brace themselves for whatever assault on their own values on morality and ethics gets thrown their way all because they committed the unforgivable and grievous sin of being interested in playing the cool martial artist class and not buying into its Insane Troll Logic connection to being lawful?Some of us do operate on the basis that it's insulting to default assume a player is immature enough to treat "morality in this fictitious universe works this way" as an "assault on their own values on morality and ethics"; because IME people who want to play RPGs at all tend to know the difference between a piece of fiction and an expression of a genuine belief.
It's not about whether they're mature enough to handle it if they're subjected to it, but about whether they should have to be subjected to it on a constant basis as an assumed default.
Horror Adventures exists. Horror-themed adventures exist and existed before that book or even P1E existed. At no point is it reasonable to suggest that horror-themed games should be forever off the table, no questions asked. But it is reasonable that that sort of thing should have to be expressly consented to, never just dropped on a player's lap. Sure, they probably could grin and bear with it for however long they need to, but they shouldn't have to.
I'm never assuming people are immature. I am giving people enough regard and dignity that I don't think anyone should have this sort of thing imposed. There's a difference.
Ditto alignment. Just like there's no fine print that I'm signing when I join a Pathfinder game saying "Go ahead and hit me with whatever horrors you got" (and nor are you to be assuming any), so to should you not be assuming any such fine print regarding morality or ethics. I mean, is that just basic decency?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we put the brakes on comments regarding others maturity when they don't agree with an opinion?
As far as the alignment bits go -- even if alignment is removed from a game, it is still possible to play your character as if they followed said alignment. One doesn't have to have some mechanical stick and carrot system in order to have your character follow an idea, moral code and so on.
If you believe said character should be Lawful Good, for example, then play them as such.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment has been part of this game for a long time, true. However it hasn't been part of every game forever, and in some games it has never had anything to do with it. And yet, there are still good people and bad people and shades of gray people.
Perhaps the truth is that some people just don't want or need the carrot and stick of the alignment system. Or there are those that are fighting against it purely because others are fighting so hard to keep it.
However, it becomes hard to take ANY side seriously when people start making hyperbolic statements and/or insulting others. It doesn't convince or persuade.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing alignment as a mechanic profoundly changes the metaphysics of the setting. That's fine for a home game, or a game that isn't Pathfinder/D&D, but doing it in games where it has historically been a major setting element is a weird retcon and break from verisimilitude.
It's really the same issue as removing Classes in a lot of ways. Or removing all races/ancestries other than humans. Yes, you can remove any or all of those elements, and indeed several of my favorite games have none of the three...but if you remove them it stops being indentifiably and iconically the same game it's always been.
In short, a lot of people, myself included, want their Pathfinder/D&D experience to include playing a CG Half-Elf Rogue if they feel like it. Removing any of the three bits of that makes it just...not the same game any more in a way that just changing some of the rules that have less weight of history behind them doesn't.