Settlements and Alignments

Why is it that the restriction on joining a settlement based on alignment fills me with dread? The one step away thing seems like a horrible, horrible idea, at least as a main rule.

So, I suggest, as default, letting people start settlements where Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good people can both live, making the alignment restriction an optional thing.

Sure, there may be personality conflicts, but the morals and ethics don't automatically determine friendships, or make someone bad to live near. In fact, such differences might add to the RP potential, and add to the experience.

I know for a fact that a few buddies of mine are ging to be aiming for somewhere in the Lawful alignments (on either end of the moral spectrum), while I'm likely to be Chaotic. Does that mean I shouldn't be able to set up house near them, and work with them to build a town?

It shouldn't.

As long as you're both good or both evil, there isnt' a problem. There will be Neutral Good and Neutral Evil settlements. If you're going to complete opposite ends LG-CE / LE-CG, then there's too much moral difference. This won't keep you from playing together, but the communities in the settlements will not accept both camps.

The thing is, WHY?

This is not specifically about me. It's about the whole concept. There are multiple canonical settlements that have major players of conflicting alignments in them, as I recall.

Just because someone is Chaotic Evil doesn't mean they can't get along with Lawful Good folks. They can be self-serving, greedy, jerks, and still be friends of paladin's, after all (note that the code does not require the paladin to only work with Good characters, just that associates do not "consistently offend her moral code", something easy to keep done if evilness is done out of sight and quietly.)

The artificial restriction based on alignment will break immersion because it makes no sense, is what I'm saying.

I've never played in a tabletop game where such disparate alignments got along well. Unless you're super amazing at hiding those evil acts you're committing, that paladin is going to take issue with you. If you aren't really being evil, then you're probably neutral. Just my experience.

Behavior =/= alignment, at least in whole. It contributes, but isn't the whole. The reasoning behind it is part of the thing.

I could play your archtypical CE murderhobo, who doesn't really care for his kills as beings, in the same party as a LG Paladin. So long as they were both pointed at the same target (EG: An army of [X]'s invading their home country, a group of [Y]'s raiding their village, ect), I'd see no problem with them working together. One is killing for the sheer thril of it, while the other to protect and save. Are they philisophically and morally opposed? Yes. But are they conflicting? No. They have the same goal, just different reasons.

Even in social adventures, there's enough common ground for such different characters to work together. Say, [Z] was murdered and robbed, and CE wants to find the guy who done it because, hey, [Z] owed him money and he's getting it, even from the killer's hide, while LG wants to bring the killer to justice.

In this case, CE might want a town where he can rest and recover from going out and being a murderhobo for hire, while Paladin wishes to guide and shepherd people to a new, shining future. Both want to get the town built up and defended, though they'll take different approaches, but their goals aren't conflicting, letting them contribute their own way.

See what I'm getting at?

In terms of actual land area when compared to actual cities, I don't think any given hex is all that large. I think for comparison they put the whole world map of the planned game area and it was about the size of Philadelphia.

This means that you could probably build settlements in neighboring hexes and they would grow to become one city with different districts that cater to different alignments.

If you were to make your multi-hex city into a 'nation' that is neutral, and every settlement has at least one neutral aspect to its alignment you would get a major city that is capable of catering to any Alignment.

Not really. Over a long period of time, those evil aspects will shine through. You'd be evicted if not worse.

Not really. Over a long period of time, those evil aspects will shine through. You'd be evicted if not worse.

Eh. If you're CE, you aren't ruthlessly slaughtering puppies every minute of the day, you know. Save the murderhobo-ness for when you're off being a hired thug, and be a generally normal person in-town. Paladin's don't have to start smiting Joe Commoner just because he pingged as evil, after all, and that's essentially what you'd be being while in-town.

Now, if your reputation caught up with you, that's another story, which I'm far less annoyed by. Far more reasonable to be ejected over a bad reputation than an alignment difference.

What you describe sounds more like lawful neutral settlement allowing lawful good and lawful evil characters to live and work together toward a common goal.

It's more that I think of Chaotic Evil PC's as being more "Enlightened Self-Interest" than "LOLOLOLMURDERLOLOLZ". Being CE, and rational about it is what I'm talking about. Utter lack of empathy and willingness to kill when you benefit, but not when there's detrimental things, would be a trait I'd expect, instead of "I murder the king".

Get what I'm saying?

I get what you're saying. It's just that that doesn't match any definition of Chaotic Evil I've ever seen. Chaotic Neutral at worst.

I would think enlighten self-interest would better fall under NE. It kind of requires that one be willing to work inside the law sometimes too. CE isn't all senseless violence and murder either, but it is definitely a culture of risk taking and control through intimidation. Which doesn't really fit my understanding of enlightened self-interest.

Nah. Neutral is less willing and eager to gut someone for their stuff.

Probably just a playgroup difference regarding alignment definitions.

Still, point stands. Why can't CN work out of a LG settlement? They can contribute, but not completely offend the whole town.

Ideally, no alignment restrictions would be the thing, but I suppose that adding a within 3 steps option would be second best. That way you can get NE in a LG town (which would be the amoral blackmailer who has dirt on the ruler/highly successful and utterly ruthless merchant who has much needed or desired goods, ect), but not the commonly expected CE murderhobo psychopath players, and so on.

Basically, slacken the shackles of alignment a little, you know?

Lawful settlements just have way too many rules for someone Chaotic.

That's assuming Chaotic means automatically law-hating, which is only a small part. Remember, Chaotic is flexibility, adaptation, and freedom, while the "disrespect of authority" is only a potential downside.

And Lawful, again, has law-abiding as only a small part, with the rest being stability, honesty, and trustworthiness.

Don't exactly see how the positives are conflicting.

Unfortunately, this is Pathfinder: Link

In the real world, there's no absolute definition of good or evil or law or chaos, and everyone subjectively forms their own opinion of other people's ethics and morality. Two people could have very different opinions about a third person. In the world of Pathfinder, this is not the case. Alignment is a universal constant—an absolute framework within which every sentient creature is embedded. Two people can use magic to determine the alignment position of a third and they'll both get the same information.

If you want aspects of both Lawful and Chaotic . . . you're Neutral.

Unfortunately, this is Pathfinder: Link

If you want aspects of both Lawful and Chaotic . . . you're Neutral.

Oh, I know of how Pathfinder is for alignments. Thing is, it makes little sense for such a narrow window of allowing people to settle. Why would a Lawful Good settlement object to a Chaotic Neutral individual making a living there? So long as the taxes are paid and they don't stir up trouble, I'd see no reason for them to do so.

(Also, my post was more about there being degrees of alignment, too. Someone can be freedom loving, and flexible while still honoring tradition, and be called CN, after all.)

Anyway, I'm just saying that the option for players to form settlements of more than just an alignment and those one step away from it should be there. Because in a sandbox game, restricting players in that manner feels... Wrong, and immersion breaking.