Back in 1st Edition AD&D, the Fiend Folio introduced the Githzerai, which were Chaotic Neutral, but had Monks.But are they not LN, just like in 3rd Ed?
Not according to anything in the rather extensive Fiend Folio entry for the Githzerai, which described all the Githzerai as being Chaotic Neutral and living in Limbo (1st Edition AD&D's equivalent to the Maelstrom), while allowing their mortal enemies (and relatives) the Githyanki to be Any Evil, but never having Monks.
Interesting, I have owned and used the 1st Ed AD&D FF and the githzerai therein for decades now, and I always assumed the Githzerai Monks are Lawful.Back in 1st Edition AD&D, the Fiend Folio introduced the Githzerai, which were Chaotic Neutral, but had Monks.But are they not LN, just like in 3rd Ed?Not according to anything in the rather extensive Fiend Folio entry for the Githzerai, which described all the Githzerai as being Chaotic Neutral and living in Limbo (1st Edition AD&D's equivalent to the Maelstrom), while allowing their mortal enemies (and relatives) the Githyanki to be Any Evil, but never having Monks.
I'm given to understand that they more or less became Lawful in future editions because of the character of Dak'kon from Planescape: Torment.
|
In fact I feel the existence of them as is shows the wonderful flaws of the alignment system. Does extra damage against Chaotic creatures? Cool, who defines that. The sword? The player, the creature? If two people can look at a someones story so far and come out with a range of alignments, do we really want to be tying stuff like extra damage to it?
That one is easy. A creature's alignment in a setting is determined by the one who embodies the universe itself, who tells your PCs whether it is night or day, south or north, winter or summer : the GM
So, yes, before defining your PC's alignment, or interpreting a NPC's actions as being of a certain alignment, it is much better to clarify with the GM what their take on alignments is. Because it is quite literally the take of the gods and the entire universe on this topic ;-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general problem with alignment is that it attempts to sync external actions and internal motivations, and to really work, everything has to be categorized into one of nine boxes, but the problem is that people of different alignments can engage in the same external action, with differing internal motivations.
It was an early attempt to describe the internal motivations of characters, and has long since been surpassed by countless other RPGs that use much more interesting methods.
If the Law-Chaos and Good-Evil axis remain for the world building, I'm okay with that. I'd rather most mortal beings don't actually have an alignment, and alignment only be used for beings that have it as a subtype for their creature type. For PC's, I'd rather have a set of questions that every character has to answer that help give direction for the character, and can be incorporated into a few minor benefits during play when player's bring focus on them.
Of course that last bit will largely be ignored, disliked, and even hated by most on this forum. Please, don't feel you need to tell me how much you don't like it. Assume I already know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason (but not the only one) that I like Alignments is actually an odd one. I may be a minority here, but the reason is because I believe in Objective Truth. I believe that it exists and can be known in RL. (sorry Rosswyn, totally disagree with you there) When I come to Pathfinder, I find that Golarion has Objective Truth. There are LITERALLY Good domains and Evil domains, Chaotic beings and a Lawful beings. The characters make decisions that effect and shape their world around them. (not saying that they couldn't without Alignments, it's just that decisions become more arbitrary without Alignments, to me...) Then when they die (generally speaking) they go to their respective alignments domains. No one can escape that Truth. This is the world I want to play in. That is the world that Paizo has created, (or continued as it were) and Alignments are at the core of it. I'm not interested in preserving some archaic D&D legacy, in fact I've only played Pathfinder. I'm weird and I WANT this is in my RPG. So you can say I have a tiny emotional investment in Alignments. ;P
I understand that not everyone who plays are interested in Alignments. (probably most aren't) I also understand that others will totally disagree with me. That's absolutely fine. They can play the game as they see fit. But please understand that there are a lot more reasons here for wanting to keep the Alignments than "Tradition"... There are many games that do away with or flat out ignore alignments. (at least I heard there are, I don't know, never played them ;P) Cool, if that's their cup of tea, go for it! Me? I'm proud that Paizo has decided to keep alignments. But that's just me.
PS I'm not trying to start a philosophical debate here, just showing you where I come from and that my investment here is not in tradition.
Since this has turned to alignment, I will say that according to a popular theory in LG only paladin threads we can't have C barbarians with an anathema, or at least one that they keep.
Haha. You must be referring to the "Chaotics can't have Codes because they can't follow the rules" thread. I was part of that discussion, and I can say as one of *those* LG only Paladins this: While the argument had some merit and excellent points, it unfortunately is not the reality in Golarion. Paizo chose to build a world in that Chaotics can follow codes and refrain from anathemas. Now I have alternatives to making Paladins open to all alignments, this is not the place or the thread to discuss these points...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iron_Matt17 - No, of course I don't agree with you ;P But I respect your ideas of fun and morals. At this point I'm just waiting to see whether the Playtest rules (and more importantly, the PF2 rules!) will let me shove alignments under a rug gracefully and without impacting the mechanics. If so, I'll be in heaven.
No prob, as long as I can play the way I want (and in Unchained Paizo gave me and people like me a lot of good choices about dumping alignments) you all can play exactly the way - you - want. It's only fair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iron_Matt17 - No, of course I don't agree with you ;P But I respect your ideas of fun and morals. At this point I'm just waiting to see whether the Playtest rules (and more importantly, the PF2 rules!) will let me shove alignments under a rug gracefully and without impacting the mechanics. If so, I'll be in heaven.
No prob, as long as I can play the way I want (and in Unchained Paizo gave me and people like me a lot of good choices about dumping alignments) you all can play exactly the way - you - want. It's only fair.
Thank you, and I wish the same. I hope they make it easy for you to "shove it gracefully". (your choice of words here makes me smile) It is only fair...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, in case anyone didn't notice, the Monk blog came out today and DIDN'T mention alignment restrictions at all . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, that was the most important thing for me about the monk. Between that and the watered down mysticism on the monk, I'm not particularly happy.
The Barbarian one mention the lack of restriction? People reacted like there was no restriction, but I can't find any mention to alignment: any, neither on Barbarian nor Monk.
Holy s+$& that's great, UnArcaneElection! I was missing it!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, that was the most important thing for me about the monk. Between that and the watered down mysticism on the monk, I'm not particularly happy.
The Barbarian one mention the lack of restriction? People reacted like there was no restriction, but I can't find any mention to alignment: any, neither on Barbarian nor Monk.
It is mentioned in the Barbarian blog post itself, as part of the Additional Barbarian features : "This is also a good point to mention one feature barbarians don't have in the playtest: alignment requirements. Barbarians can be whatever alignment they want; for instance, a lawful barbarian might act like one of the concepts I described earlier, controlling and holding back her emotions to channel and release her rage when it matters most."
If the Druid also has no alignment restriction anymore, the only ones left will be Clerics and Paladins, likely justified by their close link to their deities
It makes the LG-only Paladin less justified IMO, which is not really a good thing for me as I would prefer having Divine Champions really exemplifying different alignments (like Paladin for LG) and not just Paladin for Good and Antipaladin for Evil (less variety IMO, YMMV)
|
To be honest, that was the most important thing for me about the monk. Between that and the watered down mysticism on the monk, I'm not particularly happy.
The Barbarian one mention the lack of restriction? People reacted like there was no restriction, but I can't find any mention to alignment: any, neither on Barbarian nor Monk.
It is mentioned in the Barbarian blog post itself, as part of the Additional Barbarian features : "This is also a good point to mention one feature barbarians don't have in the playtest: alignment requirements. Barbarians can be whatever alignment they want; for instance, a lawful barbarian might act like one of the concepts I described earlier, controlling and holding back her emotions to channel and release her rage when it matters most."
If the Druid also has no alignment restriction anymore, the only ones left will be Clerics and Paladins, likely justified by their close link to their deities
It makes the LG-only Paladin less justified IMO, which is not really a good thing for me as I would prefer having Divine Champions really exemplifying different alignments (like Paladin for LG) and not just Paladin for Good and Antipaladin for Evil (less variety IMO, YMMV)
To me a paladin is LG, but I could live with it being demoted to prestige or archetype. Though leaving it a base class seems like opening it up to all alignments was the clear choice. Not sure why several classes are moving towards anathema and the pally remains alignment locked... Maybe the pally leaves the door open for monks to remain lawful???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, seems to me like LG restriction + code of conduct are redundant for Pallies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it amusing that Monks now officially have fewer restrictions on their behavior than Barbarians. Oh how the turntables...
I wouldn't be surprised if the Monk has Monastic orders with Anathemas that can be all alignments...
Monastic orders would be a bizarre thing to leave out of the preview if they exist, that'd be a pretty fundamental part of the class and something to advertise. I imagine Monks will get anathemas when Vows make their return but I don't think they'll be in the playtest, or even the CRB.
It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.
While there's always the possibility that the Monk class itself won't have alignment restrictions but selecting even one ki ability saddles you with alignment requirements, edicts, codes, and anathema (and you can only pick a ki ability if your name has an odd number of letters; no, not your character, you the player), I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic that we're finally free.
Because mere words can't express how welcome this news is.
Because this is the victory slide this announcement deserves.
It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.While there's always the possibility that the Monk class itself won't have alignment restrictions but selecting even one ki ability saddles you with alignment requirements, edicts, codes, and anathema (and you can only pick a ki ability if your name has an odd number of letters; no, not your character, you the player), I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic that we're finally free.
Because mere words can't express how welcome this news is.
Because this is the victory slide this announcement deserves.
The LONG slide in that second video has an eerie resemblance to some of my dreams . . . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The LONG slide in that second video has an eerie resemblance to some of my dreams . . . .
I'm obscurely reminded of a story I ran into on the internet years ago. The guy telling it claimed that he'd gone to sleep watching TV and woken up just long enough to see the music video for Weapon of Choice, and for years afterward believed it was a weird dream until he described it to someone and they informed him it was real.
I believe that story.