I think that it is time to question whether or not we want to continue enforcing alignment restrictions on Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. I realize that these are old tropes and sacred cows, but I don't think that it makes much sense to restrict them from taking certain alignments in retrospect.
- Why is it that Lawful characters cannot gain levels in Barbarian or go into a Rage? Are Lawful characters somehow unable to become angry? Is it impossible to harness the power of screaming blood frenzy while following a personal code of honorable conduct or recognizing a higher authority?
- Why can't Bards be Lawful? Are Lawful characters automatically less capable of musically entertaining people then characters of other alignments? I would imagine that musicians that work together in orchestras would have a Lawful bent, as would those musicians that devote their lives to writing beautiful, intricate symphonies.
- Finally: why do Monks have to be Lawful? Is there no room in Pathfinder for Drunken Masters? And why is it that whenever you read through the D&D 3.5 book, the descriptions of Ember and Mialee both use their devotion to their respective professions to justify their alignments - despite the fact that one character is Lawful, and the other is Chaotic?
I'm not convinced that these rules should still stand.
Bards: Yeah, I don't see much reason for this.
Monks: They are supposed to be disciplined, which Lawful is supposed to mean. I think it makes sense to keep it.
Barbarians: Eh. Rage is extremely chaotic, though I can *kinda* see a very disciplined character who is usually quite taciturn and polite simply controlling what anger he has in a very precise and careful way, like a nozzle on a hose. I'm ambivalent about this one.
I think that it is time to question whether or not we want to continue enforcing alignment restrictions on Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. I realize that these are old tropes and sacred cows, but I don't think that it makes much sense to restrict them from taking certain alignments in retrospect.
- Why is it that Lawful characters cannot gain levels in Barbarian or go into a Rage? Are Lawful characters somehow unable to become angry? Is it impossible to harness the power of screaming blood frenzy while following a personal code of honorable conduct or recognizing a higher authority?
- Why can't Bards be Lawful? Are Lawful characters automatically less capable of musically entertaining people then characters of other alignments? I would imagine that musicians that work together in orchestras would have a Lawful bent, as would those musicians that devote their lives to writing beautiful, intricate symphonies.
- Finally: why do Monks have to be Lawful? Is there no room in Pathfinder for Drunken Masters? And why is it that whenever you read through the D&D 3.5 book, the descriptions of Ember and Mialee both use their devotion to their respective professions to justify their alignments - despite the fact that one character is Lawful, and the other is Chaotic?
I'm not convinced that these rules should still stand.
From a realism standpoint I have to agree with you, but with roughly half the core classes having an alignment requirement, and troublesome classes like Paladin that would have to be entirely rewritten to work without an alignment requirement, I just don't see it happening. Which is a shame, since it's really one of the last remaining vestiges of the 1st edition class requirements and restrictions.
(Though removing all but the Druid/Paladin alignment restrictions might work. The Cleric (by deity)/Druid/Paladin alignment restrictions do seem to all sort of fit together as a group.)
- Why can't Bards be Lawful? Are Lawful characters automatically less capable of musically entertaining people then characters of other alignments? I would imagine that musicians that work together in orchestras would have a Lawful bent, as would those musicians that devote their lives to writing beautiful, intricate symphonies.
Bards CAN be Lawful, unless that's a typo in the Beta.
It makes perfect sense to me for bards to have whatever alignment, but as far as the rest goes, they have to stay as they are. When it comes to their abilities, the barbarian's rage and the monk's ki are kind of the opposite extremes, and it makes sense that an ordered, lawful character can't progress as a barbarian, or that an unfocused mind can't continue as a monk.
It makes perfect sense to me for bards to have whatever alignment, but as far as the rest goes, they have to stay as they are. When it comes to their abilities, the barbarian's rage and the monk's ki are kind of the opposite extremes, and it makes sense that an ordered, lawful character can't progress as a barbarian, or that an unfocused mind can't continue as a monk.
I agree. There is no good justification for an alignment requirement for bards. But barbarians aren't just angry, they're harnessing a fundamental mental state of chaotic frenzy that predates ordered civilization. It's not something an ordered mind would do. Likewise, monks are walking a path that requires extreme personal discipline. It's not something an un-lawful person can do.
(Honestly, I'd prefer to get rid of alignments, period, but there's no chance of that this version.)
Well drunken masters don't have an alignment requirement and monks that change alignment still keep their abilities they just can't advance as monk's anymore (they could go drunken master though). Bards are already cleaned of their requirement (which is good considering the feat in the complete warrior splat book called "devoted performer" or something like that).
Barbarian's I'm a bit either way about but I would want to see some good RP from the player on a lawful barbarian, that's a personal thing though.
Monks: They are supposed to be disciplined, which Lawful is supposed to mean. I think it makes sense to keep it.
Mialee and Ember were both described as disciplined and devoted to their respective arts. One was Chaotic, and one was Lawful. So which is it? I'd also like to point out that it is perfectly possible for Chaotic people to be focused and disciplined in regards to certain areas while having an overall Chaotic personality.
Barbarians: Eh. Rage is extremely chaotic, though I can *kinda* see a very disciplined character who is usually quite taciturn and polite simply controlling what anger he has in a very precise and careful way, like a nozzle on a hose. I'm ambivalent about this one.
Barbarian Rage is about focusing your anger to give you the power to smite down your enemies. It's kind of like drawing on the power of the Dark Side minus the Force Tricks.
Actually, I take that back - the way it is written now, you DO get the equivalent of Force Tricks - just not the really powerful ones like Force Choke or Force Lightning.
In any event, I'm sure you can think of some Lawful Evil Sith lords in Star Wars that acted in an otherwise Lawful fashion until it came time for them to channel their hatred and make with the beatdown.
And I'm sure you could probably think of people IRL that were extremely Lawful but were prone to terrible fits of anger. George Washingon and Harry Truman come to mind immediately, but I'm sure there's some other good examples out there.
(Honestly, I'd prefer to get rid of alignments, period, but there's no chance of that this version.)
Why not? Is it an essential game mechanic that will have a broad impact on the balance of the game? Or is it just a vestige of 1st Edition that exists for the sake of existing and just serves as a barrier to character construction and interesting role playing?
I can see Paladins needing to have a Good alignment, and Druids having a partially Neutral alignment, and Clerics having to have an alignment that is compatible with their deity. But these other classes? I don't see the point.
Well drunken masters don't have an alignment requirement and monks that change alignment still keep their abilities they just can't advance as monk's anymore (they could go drunken master though).
The Drunken Master Prestige Class is dead and buried for all intents and purposes. You can certainly play one, but it's not official - it's not core PRPG material. And frankly, I'd like to play some kind of crazy, chaotic martial arts character without having to wait 5 levels to have an epiphany and switch my alignment from Lawful Good to Chaotic Good.
|
I would agree that the Bard really doesn't need the alignment requirement, but the other two have to stay.
As other people have said, the idea behind the Monk is extreme discipline. That's why the RAW are that a Monk cannot continue gaining levels of Monk unless s/he is Lawful. Her mind has lost the focus to keep up with the intense training of that way of living. Drunken Master is a prestige class, BTW, so when you're done feeling Lawful you can be that chaotic martial arts guru.
Barbarians need their non-lawful requirement for the same reason. Someone who is really disciplined and controlled isn't going to burst into a primal rage and start tearing things apart. He might get really angry and start taking names, but it's not the kind of fury that the wild barbarian exemplifies.
|
I think that it is time to question whether or not we want to continue enforcing alignment restrictions on Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. I realize that these are old tropes and sacred cows, but I don't think that it makes much sense to restrict them from taking certain alignments in retrospect.
- Why is it that Lawful characters cannot gain levels in Barbarian or go into a Rage? Are Lawful characters somehow unable to become angry? Is it impossible to harness the power of screaming blood frenzy while following a personal code of honorable conduct or recognizing a higher authority?
- Why can't Bards be Lawful? Are Lawful characters automatically less capable of musically entertaining people then characters of other alignments? I would imagine that musicians that work together in orchestras would have a Lawful bent, as would those musicians that devote their lives to writing beautiful, intricate symphonies.
- Finally: why do Monks have to be Lawful? Is there no room in Pathfinder for Drunken Masters? And why is it that whenever you read through the D&D 3.5 book, the descriptions of Ember and Mialee both use their devotion to their respective professions to justify their alignments - despite the fact that one character is Lawful, and the other is Chaotic?
I'm not convinced that these rules should still stand.
It may not make enormous sense, but these cows are too sacred (the "it's not D&D" line gets crossed if too many of these fixes are applied, I think) and about the easiest things of all to house-rule out, of course. In my opinion, it's the whole idea of alignment that's ridiculous, but that's the game (at least the 1e alignment languages got ditched, although I never allowed them anyhow; that was the easiest house-rule I ever imposed).
I like the restrictions as they are now: Bard can be everything, monks have to be lawful (ultimate discipline), and barbarians can't (primal chaos).
Why not? Is it an essential game mechanic that will have a broad impact on the balance of the game? Or is it just a vestige of 1st Edition that exists for the sake of existing and just serves as a barrier to character construction and interesting role playing?
Neither. It's not an essential mechanic, but it's an essential part of the game's flavour. A game without the Nine is not D&D to me.
I wouldn't mind expanding the alignment system to get an allegiance/emity system:
Allegiance means that you have a strong tie to an organisation or ideal, and that it colours your outlook and behaviour.
Allegiances can be Moral (good or evil), Ethic (law or chaos), Balance, Organisations, Nations, Races, Families, Persons, concepts like Nature, Peace, War, Nobility (you can draw heavily from PFs domains here)...
We could also have an Enmity towards those concepts - sometimes that translates into a clear opposite (Good Enmity is essentially Evil Allegiance, as is Piece Enmity and War Allegiance), but other things woudln't have such a clear opposite: Cheliax Enmity might go hand in hand with Andoran Allegiance, but you don't have to be an Andoran sympathiser to oppose Cheliax.
Some classes, spells, feats, and so on will affect those with a certain allegiance or enmity, and some will only be available to those with a certain allegiance or enmity (sometimes, the two will be interconnected. A smite Evil Spell will require Evil Enmity and affect those with Evil Allegiance. More generally, there'd be a Smite Allegiance or Enmity spell, that would allow those with one Allegiance or Enmity to affect the opposite.)
Rangers could incorporate this in their favoured enemy abilities, for example, and of course the paladin would have Good and Order Allegiance.
But I think that this would go beyond the scope of PF. It would work well as an optional system (I got to start publishing OGL material), or maybe as the evolution of alignment in Pathfinder Second Edition if and when they will do that.
As other people have said, the idea behind the Monk is extreme discipline. That's why the RAW are that a Monk cannot continue gaining levels of Monk unless s/he is Lawful. Her mind has lost the focus to keep up with the intense training of that way of living. Drunken Master is a prestige class, BTW, so when you're done feeling Lawful you can be that chaotic martial arts guru.
Here's the problem: Alignments as written control a bit too much about the character to match every possibility people want to play. They're meant to be cover political machinations, social interaction, and inherent nature.
Take, for example, an evil monk in a recent campaign. The Monk was convinced that the existing governments were corrupt and foolish, and that the constraint of rules held back the exceptional. Clearly Chaotic. This Monk also believed that personal advancement and achievement was all that mattered, and those who were stronger and faster should be allowed to do what they wished. Rather evil.
Nothing about this affects the character's internal actions or disciplines. Indeed, the urge to excel certainly gives the character a great motivation to keep up his internal discipline. If internal discipline is the only motivator, why don't wizards, with all their scribing and memorizing, have to be lawful?
I think removing the alignment restrictions and letting people play their characters as they see fit is a great option for bards, barbarians, and monks. Paladins should be required to be good, but I'm not sure why the Law is necessary for them.
And, as a final note, let's not forget that there are a lot of spells that are designed to help fight certain classes. Would a party ever consider going after a group of monks without protection from law cast? I think this is a balance issue inherent in the rules that bears discussion, as it is a weakness of otherwise strong classes.
It may not make enormous sense, but these cows are too sacred (the "it's not D&D" line gets crossed if too many of these fixes are applied, I think) and about the easiest things of all to house-rule out, of course. In my opinion, it's the whole idea of alignment that's ridiculous, but that's the game (at least the 1e alignment languages got ditched, although I never allowed them anyhow; that was the easiest house-rule I ever imposed).
Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
As other people have said, the idea behind the Monk is extreme discipline. That's why the RAW are that a Monk cannot continue gaining levels of Monk unless s/he is Lawful. Her mind has lost the focus to keep up with the intense training of that way of living. Drunken Master is a prestige class, BTW, so when you're done feeling Lawful you can be that chaotic martial arts guru.
And as I said before: why do I have to defer my character concept for five levels because of some silly rule that says that Monks have to be Lawful? And the Drunken Master Prestige Class is Non-Core PRPG to boot.
Unfortunately, after all of 3.5's rules with spells that are based on alignment, monsters with alignment subtypes, and DR/alignment, I think that alignment is something that really can't be removed while still keeping backwards-compatibility intact.
I'm not saying that we should remove Alignment altogether. I'm just saying that I don't think certain classes should be shoe-horned into specific alignments unless there is an awfully good reason to do so. Removing alignment restrictions doesn't tamper with these rules at all - it just means that a Chaotic Monk might get whacked with a Dictum from time to time.
Okay, I appreciate everyone's opinion, but this is an example of one of those things that bugs me about the playtest forums. These aren't just suppose to be like the rest of the forums. They are suppose to actually have to do with the playtest.
Not only has it been stated that Paizo doesn't want to deviate too far from 3.5 (which would seem to indicate that they don't want to get rid of alignment), but several members of Paizo's staff have explicitly said that alignment won't be going away.
Why are we even going this route? Sure, if you don't like alignment, and you wish it wouldn't be used in the game, there is a place for posts like that, but they aren't in the playtest forum, because alignment is in the game. Please, post as much as you want to in the general Pathfinder RPG foum on this, but alignment, and alignment restrictions on classes are currently in the game.
This thread is a perfect example of why I wonder if the playtest will do much good. This thread could easily go ten pages with opinions about alignments and if they should or shouldn't be in the game, and alternate rules on how to smite and cast alignment based spells without alignment, and people taking someone else's theory and running with it.
In the mean time, it get harder and harder to figure out where to post actual playtest data, since threads about this or that class ability start to go on for pages about abilities that or rules that are based on other rules or abilities posted by other posters that aren't in the playtest at all, and it gets harder and harder to just find someone posting about "We tried X tonight, this is how the encounter went because of X."
Okay, I appreciate everyone's opinion, but this is an example of one of those things that bugs me about the playtest forums. These aren't just suppose to be like the rest of the forums. They are suppose to actually have to do with the playtest.
*snip*
In the mean time, it get harder and harder to figure out where to post actual playtest data, since threads about this or that class ability start to go on for pages about abilities that or rules that are based on other rules or abilities posted by other posters that aren't in the playtest at all, and it gets harder and harder to just find someone posting about "We tried X tonight, this is how the encounter went because of X."
A perfect example of lawful alignment behavior! You, KnightErrantJR, could make a good monk or paladin :D
Of course he is right. Wasn't there an alternate rule section around here?
Anyway Sueki Suezo, to get, chaotically, back on thread -- keep the restrictions. It's about how these characters are in this generic game / setting. If you want to house rule it for your game, fine but the basic core rules about alignment should remain. The fact that the rules interfere with your individual character concept isn't a reason to change the rules for everyone. The idea was to fix what needed to be fixed in 3.5, and retain backwards compatibilty to the greatest possible extent, not rewrite the whole thing. As for your game, it's your game. Have fun. Unless of course this whole thing is an attempt to end run your DM and change the games rules in his game, in which case, shame on you, you fiend! :)
The only one I'm against losing its requirements is the paladin. Straight paladin should have to be LG. I refuse to budge on that. Feel free to move around me, but I will ignore any and all referances to anything other than a LG paladin they don't exist in my world or head.
*plugs ears with fingers and dances away singing "La la la I'm not listening*
Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
Let me show you somethig amazing. It's a beverage rich with nutrition, especially calcium, which is good for your bones.
The stuff is called milk. In our society, most of this milk we drink comes out of cows.
Beyond that, their droppings make good natural fertiliser.
So your statement is dead wrong, not only figuratively, but also literally.
Would a party ever consider going after a group of monks without protection from law cast?
Definetly. They may not have the time to prepare the spell, or don't think it worth their while (and spell slots) - especially if their other abilities and items already give them better bonuses.
Trolls are better for leather and meat, they keep growing it back so you can keep harvesting more!
|
|
Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
It looks to me like you'd prefer to create a game based on 3.5 rather than one that's more like a continuation of 3.5. Which is a noble enough mission, absolutely, just not one that the Paizo guys have set themselves. The balance point is, of course, going to be in a different place for all of us. I would say, though, that alignment requirements are an example of something that could be easily house-ruled out (if there were a book of optional rules it would be close to as simple as: "Class alignment restrictions no longer apply").
Wizards of the Coast made Monks any lawful (or they kept them that way, I’m not familiar with the previous editions) and gave the explanation “It’s because you have to have a lawful alignment to lead the disciplined lifestyle necessary to be a Monk.”
Wizards, in Complete Scoundrel, cites Riddick from Pitch Black as an example of someone Chaotic Evil (and I would tend to agree; Riddick is a murderer and on the wrong side of the law). Well, in the movie, how many times does Riddick yell out in frustration? Lose his cool? Lose his composure? IMO, Riddick is one of the most disciplined characters in the entire movie This is further supported by Chronicles of Riddick when we have a foil (Kyra, formerly Jack). Riddick is still Chaotic (maybe Evil, maybe Neutral, but still Chaotic in either case) and so is Kyra. But who do we see yelling in frustration when she runs up against the closing hatchway on Crematoria after Riddick smashes in Anatoli’s nose? And who do we see looking down on her in disdain? Both Chaotic, but Riddick is still the more disciplined.
And if that ain’t enough, let’s look at the Chaos Monk from Dragon Magazine Issue #335. Here are all the class features that both classes have in common (ergo, all the class features that do not require a Lawful alignment: d8 HD, 4 + Int skill points per level (and the same list of class skills), the same weapon proficiencies and armor restrictions, the three bonus feats, the unarmed strike, the AC bonus, evasion, still mind, the fast movement, ki strike (magic), slow fall, improved evasion, diamond soul, quivering palm, ki strike (adamantine), timeless body, and empty body.
In other words, only the Flurry of Blows, the Purity of Body, the Wholeness of Body, the Ki Strike (lawful), the Diamond Body, the Greater Flurry of Blows, the Abundant Step, the Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and the Perfect Body are Lawful only.
But are they really lawful only, or just stuck in a Lawful only class mistakenly? What’s so lawful about the Flurry of Blows and its Greater version? Or immunity to diseases? Or being able to heal oneself? Or Dimension Door? Or the Tongues spell? Or DR 10/magic and being an Outsider (and not even a Lawful Outsider at that)? Or Spell Resistance? Of all the Lawful only class abilities of the Monk, only Ki Strike (lawful) is inherently lawful. If the original class feature had been Ki Strike (alignment): “pick a component of your alignment (or pick one if you’re True Neutral) and your Ki Strikes overcome DR as if they were weapons of that alignment”, then there wouldn’t be a case for Lawful only.
Or is this just because Pathfinder is written specifically for a single setting (Golarion)? Because I can understand that. Thematically speaking, the Dragonlance Wizard either becomes a renegade or joins the Wizards of High Sorcery. That is entirely appropriate within its own setting, but the core 3.5 PHB has no such restrictions because it is to be the bare essentials of playing the class. So if the Monk is supposed to be lawful because the class was written to emulate the Shaolin Monks (who were Lawful), then that needs to be a Golarion Campaign Setting specific requirement and the Monk (or rather, the list of class abilites that add up to the Monk class) needs to be setting neutral. Unless Pathfinder is Golarion specific.
So, in conclusion, either Pathfinder needs to scrap the alignment restriction, or they need to find a better reason to keep Monks lawful only (and should that be the case, it’d be nice to know when the Pathfinder Swordsage is coming out).
Monk's have had the alignment restriction from advanced I know, back then rangers had to be good aligned too (chaotic good I think), and Druids had to be neutral, assassins (a base class) had to be evil. Paladin's were of course LG. I think that was all the requirements out of the PHB for advanced.
Monk's have had the alignment restriction from advanced I know, back then rangers had to be good aligned too (chaotic good I think), and Druids had to be neutral, assassins (a base class) had to be evil. Paladin's were of course LG. I think that was all the requirements out of the PHB for advanced.
This is correct, but rangers could be any good alignment. Also bards could only belong to a neutral alignment.
|
It may not make enormous sense, but these cows are too sacred (the "it's not D&D" line gets crossed if too many of these fixes are applied, I think) and about the easiest things of all to house-rule out, of course. In my opinion, it's the whole idea of alignment that's ridiculous, but that's the game (at least the 1e alignment languages got ditched, although I never allowed them anyhow; that was the easiest house-rule I ever imposed).Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
Heh ... I very much disagree, from both a vegetarian AND D&D point of view! :)
Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
If you want 4th Edition, you know where to get it.
If you want 4th Edition, you know where to get it.Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
Please don't form a mob to find me for saying this, but 4th ed to a step in the right direction for alignments. I'm as attached to anyone to our nine axioms of alignment, and I don't see a real need to retire them. But somethings do need to be changed.
The problem is they define too much of a character, and tend to be too simplistic in our role-playing intensive games. We use alignments less and less as a roleplaying tool and more and more as simply another function to determine whether a spell or ability affected a character.
All characters are locked into the alignment system. That's fine. But when you force certain classes to be locked in even further, you limit them too greatly and create inherent conflicts. Are all barbarians loners who never band together? Their chaotic natures would imply so. What about the barbarian in a recent game who was serving his father the chief because he was a dutiful son and loyal servant? He has to be chaotic, according to the rules, even though his rage is flavored more as a fighting style than internal anger.
Let alignments represent the core values of a character and their approach to others. Don't make it a statement of their internal motivations and demeanor. Let roleplaying do that.
The reason "just houserule it" doesn't work is because I play in four floating games with four seperate groups, and occasionally a number of pick-up games. Houserules don't always transfer well and in a casual pick-up setting you need a hard and fast set of rules to adhere to so that play can move forward without arguing about what means what.
Wizards, in Complete Scoundrel, cites Riddick from Pitch Black as an example of someone Chaotic Evil (and I would tend to agree; Riddick is a murderer and on the wrong side of the law). Well, in the movie, how many times does Riddick yell out in frustration? Lose his cool? Lose his composure? IMO, Riddick is one of the most disciplined characters in the entire movie This is further supported by Chronicles of Riddick when we have a foil (Kyra, formerly Jack). Riddick is still Chaotic (maybe Evil, maybe Neutral, but still Chaotic in either case) and so is Kyra. But who do we see yelling in frustration when she runs up against the closing hatchway on Crematoria after Riddick smashes in Anatoli’s nose? And who do we see looking down on her in disdain? Both Chaotic, but Riddick is still the more disciplined.
So, because WOTC says in a sourcebook as an offhand reference that Riddick is CE, we should run with that and scrap major portions of the rules based on what WOTC things Riddick's alignment is?
So, because WOTC says in a sourcebook as an offhand reference that Riddick is CE, we should run with that and scrap major portions of the rules based on what WOTC things Riddick's alignment is?
Wizards, in Complete Scoundrel, cites Riddick from Pitch Black as an example of someone Chaotic Evil (and I would tend to agree; Riddick is a murderer and on the wrong side of the law). Well, in the movie, how many times does Riddick yell out in frustration? Lose his cool? Lose his composure? IMO, Riddick is one of the most disciplined characters in the entire movie This is further supported by Chronicles of Riddick when we have a foil (Kyra, formerly Jack). Riddick is still Chaotic (maybe Evil, maybe Neutral, but still Chaotic in either case) and so is Kyra. But who do we see yelling in frustration when she runs up against the closing hatchway on Crematoria after Riddick smashes in Anatoli’s nose? And who do we see looking down on her in disdain? Both Chaotic, but Riddick is still the more disciplined.
I feel you are taking a portion of Tectorman's statement and blowing it widely out of proportion. He was using that as an example of discipline, not as a reason to eliminate alignment.
We're NOT advocating the elimantion of the alignment rules. As I've stated earlier, those rules are integral to many mechanics in PRPG and 3.5.
We ARE advocating eliminating alignment requirements for a majority of the classes. Paladins aside, most of the alignment requirements are limiting to characters, do not make make cohesive sense, and do not add much flavor. I and several others have argued this above.
Let's stay focused on this area of discussion and discuss alignments in general elsewhere. If you disagree with removing alignment requirements for classes, I welcome your reasons why.
Well, Riddick is a murderer (or at least he was at the beginning of the movie) so Evil, definitely. Maybe we're working on an alignment shift at the end, but definitely Evil. And as far as law/chaos, he's certainly not Lawful. Maybe Neutral, maybe Chaotic. Considering his criminal nature and his disdain for authority, Chaotic didn't seem like any kind of a big stretch for me.
But the point is, he's not Lawful and somehow he manages to compose himself rather well, better than anyone else in the movie. And this runs in contradiction to the idea that self-discipline is inherently a Lawful trait.
Edit: Ninja'd. Well, to add to the above statement, let me go ahead and say that Paladins are already alignment-free. Take a Cleric, use the full BAB and d10 HD variant from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, lose your two domains, call him a Paladin, and you're done. I mean, thematically, flavorfully, mechanically, what does the Paladin have that the LG variant Cleric doesn't (aside from lack of freedom of alignment (up to the freedom that Clerics have; i.e., within one step of the deity)) and an ill-defined Code of Conduct with well-defined consequences of not following the Code of Conduct)?
And if we get freedom like that with the Paladin of all things, then I think we should get it with the Monk, too.
I had a player who wanted a Lawful barbarian, although not in so many words. He told me, "I picture my character as a fast, lightly-armored warrior whose extreme martial discipline allows him to go into a trance when he fights, so that he's stronger and isn't aware of pain as much. What class should I be?"
Mechanically, the barbarian class was ideal; I just replaced the name "rage" with "martial trance," replaced the chaotic requirement with a lawful one, and the player was as happy as can be. Honestly, I fail to see any issue there whatsoever -- as long as the requirement is being shifted to match a character concept and not some min-maxed class combo dreamed up by a computer. You want a chaotic monk? Come up with some convincing flavor text that puts that requirement into focus, and you're good to go.
See the Chaos Monk (and how little is actually different between it and the normal Monk).
See the Chaos Monk (and how little is actually different between it and the normal Monk).
Yeah, in essence they did the same thing I did.
Also the Unearthed Arcana "paladin of freedom," "paladin of tyranny," et al.
Please don't form a mob to find me for saying this, but 4th ed to a step in the right direction for alignments.If you want 4th Edition, you know where to get it.Cows are only good for one thing: eating.
And I think it's time we all had a good steak.
That's fine. (I disagree, mind, but I'm perfectly willing to listen.)
No, I was specifically objecting to Sueki Suezo's expressed attitude that sacred cows were automatically deserving of destruction, instead of at most a careful culling. People who don't have any interest in preserving D&D's sacred cows can go play 4th Edition, True20, Palladium Fantasy, Talislanta, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, GURPS Fantasy, Fantasy HERO . . .
Can someone really tell me what is different between a neutral good person and a chaotic good person?
Sure.
Chaotic good characters consider governmental structures, conformity pressures, and the like as actively objectionable, inherently tending to corruption, oppression, and hypocrisy. A neutral good character favors government and conformity pressure when they are currently promoting the good, and opposes them when they do otherwise; a mixture of laws and freedoms generally seems to work best, but order and chaos are both options. The lawful good character sees government and conformity as necessary to maintaining the good; while specific governments or social systems may be corrupt, the best answer is to reform them, instead of eliminating them.
Contrawise, chaotic evil characters consider governmental structures, conformity pressures, and the like as actively objectionable, inherently tending to prevent him from doing what he wants and getting what he wants. A neutral evil character favors government and conformity pressure when they are currently promoting his interests, and opposes them when they do otherwise; a mixture of laws and freedoms generally seems to serve his interests best, but order and chaos are both options. The lawful evil character sees government and conformity as necessary to maintaining his interests; while specific governments may work against him, power and property both depend on a stable social order; reforming the government to serve his interest is always preferable to chaos.
Lawful neutral characters fear and hate chaos, period. Law and custom are better than the alternative. While good is nicer than evil, harsh measures are to be used if necessary to ward of chaos. Chaotic neutral characters, on the other hand, see law and custom as inherently bad. Certainly, some people might abuse it, but they should be handled as individual problems by individuals; the chains of law and conformity, even in the hands of the for-now benevolent, are worse.
A monk, having been trained in the rule-bound, custom-encrusted environment of the monastery, either found himself in sympathy with law, or found himself leaving early, his training incomplete. His mystic training was focused on techniques dependent on the lawful threads of power in the multiverse. While he can retain already-acquired knowledge after his sympathies change, he cannot gain new insights into them, and so cannot progress as a monk.
A monk, having been trained in the rule-bound, custom-encrusted environment of the monastery, either found himself in sympathy with law, or found himself leaving early, his training incomplete. His mystic training was focused on techniques dependent on the lawful threads of power in the multiverse. While he can retain already-acquired knowledge after his sympathies change, he cannot gain new insights into them, and so cannot progress as a monk.
Your description of alignments is compelling, but you lose me at the above quote. I think it relies on reading into the basic text of the Player's Handbook and PRPG Rulebook, as well as the comsology of 3.5. Though applicable to the Shaolin Model, it doesn't address the other possibilities for monks.
You state "Chaotic good characters consider governmental structures, conformity pressures, and the like as actively objectionable, inherently tending to corruption, oppression, and hypocrisy. " How is it a monk, even a classic example of a monk, could not come to believe this is true? Why could they not reject governmental structures and conformity pressures? Indeed, under this model the monk would focus on being more self-reliant and independent. This would let them look ever inward and hone their internal rigor. Government and society have nothing to do with this.
Alignment restrictions tend to force flavor on DMs and players. Good characters often break the mold.
I've always been of the thought that you have your alignment then you have your philosophy. Your alignment tells you what you will and will not do, your philosophical leanings tell you how to go about it.
I think it relies on reading into the . . . comsology of 3.5.
Yep.
Law and chaos, like good and evil, are not merely descriptors of behaviors or belief systems in 3.x; they are palpable cosmic forces with extensive mechanical effects; we have aligned planes, magic, weapons, etc. It seems to me the implicit setup is that the alignment-restricted classes are actually drawing, metaphysically, on those forces. So a monk can change in his beliefs and become CG . . . but then he can't grow in his mastery of the metaphysica forces of Law that are behind ki.
I completely understand if you'd rather these cosmic forces not limit the choices of the monk or barbarian or whatnot; our milages do vary. Though I do like it how it is, I won't cry if they go away.
(Well, I'm very opposed on linguistic grounds to anything called a "paladin" not having to be LG, because paladin means chivalric hero, and any heroic adherent to the chivalric code is going to be lawful good by definition. But call it an (un)holy warrior, and feel free to remove the alignment restrictions.)
Can someone really tell me what is different between a neutral good person and a chaotic good person?
NG means you are good, but don't put too much an emphasis on either order or freedom. you are unbiased towards order - you will usually follow the laws, as long as they don't force you towards evil behaviour. You still value personal freedom, but think that this only goes so far, and sometimes laws might need to limit this for your own good.
CG means that you dislike order, tradition, and judgemental people, for the evil they bring. You have your own moral code, and follow it, but you won't let anyone else tell you where your moral compass should point to just because someone decided so. You don't quite propose anarchy, but that's just because there's evil people out there. In a situation where you know everyone's basically good-natured, you won't bother with laws - everyone will follow his own judgement, and whatever problems may arise can be dealt with by talking about it. You don't give a damn about traditions, especially if they hold anyone back. You might follow them, but that's more often by accident, as they mirror what you think is the best course of action.
I had a player who wanted a Lawful barbarian, although not in so many words. He told me, "I picture my character as a fast, lightly-armored warrior whose extreme martial discipline allows him to go into a trance when he fights, so that he's stronger and isn't aware of pain as much. What class should I be?"
Mechanically, the barbarian class was ideal; I just replaced the name "rage" with "martial trance," replaced the chaotic requirement with a lawful one, and the player was as happy as can be. Honestly, I fail to see any issue there whatsoever -- as long as the requirement is being shifted to match a character concept and not some min-maxed class combo dreamed up by a computer. You want a chaotic monk? Come up with some convincing flavor text that puts that requirement into focus, and you're good to go.
See the Chaos Monk (and how little is actually different between it and the normal Monk).
Yeah, in essence they did the same thing I did.
Also the Unearthed Arcana "paladin of freedom," "paladin of tyranny," et al.
Oh baby! This is a fight I have been trying to fight for sometime. Sadly, the Paladin discussion is over I believe and even if it wasn't, no one would be listening due to the frustration surrounding the Paladin as a whole. Anyhow....
All the arguing over Paladin's alignment and Smite and Clerics being to strong a healer... from what I've heard you can make both the Paladin and the Cleric base classes look EXTREMELY silly by just taking the 'HOLY WARRIOR' variant out of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. AND... Guess what? You can be ANY alignment you want as long as it is accepted by your deity. No Domains, d10 HD, Good BAB, Favored Weapon, Cleric Spells (at 1st level)... ANY ALIGNMENT. All that aside, I think I've discovered the broken 'Duskblade' of DIVINE classes!
I don't know what a Chaos Monk is, never seen it, but my example would be a modern day 'pro-wrestler' in theme. Despite the fact that they (modern pro-wrestling ACTORS) still need some semblance of discipline to prevent themselves and co-ACTORS from getting injured. What alignment do you make a guy, who isn't acting, and beats things to death with his bare hands violently, I'm betting it's not Lawful. A good example being a 400 lb. Gorilla, not exceedingly smart, not disiciplined at all and very savage, but I guarantee you wouldn't want one on your chest beating on you. Yes, this is the kind of character I want to play at some point and 400lb. Gorilla isn't a class. (Yea, I think Carmaggedon is amazing amounts of fun too! LOL!)
EDIT: Yes, Fighters & Barbarians can take unarmed strike, but this route has no improvement at all. The monk gains improvement with levels doing what he does best, no equipment necessary beatings.
Your description of alignments is compelling, but you lose me at the above quote. I think it relies on reading into the basic text of the Player's Handbook and PRPG Rulebook, as well as the comsology of 3.5. Though applicable to the Shaolin Model, it doesn't address the other possibilities for monks.
And the Shaolin Monk model, if it has to be anywhere, should be part of the specific campaign, not an inherent part of the core class.
Law and chaos, like good and evil, are not merely descriptors of behaviors or belief systems in 3.x; they are palpable cosmic forces with extensive mechanical effects; we have aligned planes, magic, weapons, etc. It seems to me the implicit setup is that the alignment-restricted classes are actually drawing, metaphysically, on those forces. So a monk can change in his beliefs and become CG . . . but then he can't grow in his mastery of the metaphysica forces of Law that are behind ki.
I completely understand if you'd rather these cosmic forces not limit the choices of the monk or barbarian or whatnot; our milages do vary. Though I do like it how it is, I won't cry if they go away.
Except the Chaos Monk flies in the face of nonlawfulness denying growing mastery of the fundamental forces of ki. And yes, we do want the cosmic forces limited the monk to just go away. Purely on terms of good class design, we want it to go away.
Oh baby! This is a fight I have been trying to fight for sometime. Sadly, the Paladin discussion is over I believe and even if it wasn't, no one would be listening due to the frustration surrounding the Paladin as a whole. Anyhow....
All the arguing over Paladin's alignment and Smite and Clerics being to strong a healer... from what I've heard you can make both the Paladin and the Cleric base classes look EXTREMELY silly by just taking the 'HOLY WARRIOR' variant out of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. AND... Guess what? You can be ANY alignment you want as long as it is accepted by your deity. No Domains, d10 HD, Good BAB, Favored Weapon, Cleric Spells (at 1st level)... ANY ALIGNMENT. All that aside, I think I've discovered the broken 'Duskblade' of DIVINE classes!
I said that. And no Code of Conduct to boot.
Oh baby! This is a fight I have been trying to fight for sometime.
So, from your somewhat disjointed post, my understanding (unless I totally misinterpreted it) is that if I allow, say, a Paladin of Freedom in my game, someone is going to burst in the door and prevent me from doing so, by forcing me to purchase a campaign setting hardcover and use the variant in that instead? How exactly do they intend to enforce this edict? My player with the Martial Discipline character will be petrified, looking over his shoulder all the time in case the Gaming Gestapo finds out!
|
My thoughts;
Monk - Lawful seems to be a part of the 'flavor' of this class, although I wouldn't mind seeing the Dragon Compendium Battle Dancer Pathfinderized for a Chaotic martial artist option.
Paladin - Sacred cow. Leave it alone. Create Holy (or Unholy) Warriors for other alignments as desired (using the SRD 'Paladin of Tyranny, Freedom, Slaughter' as examples, but ditching the word 'Paladin' and using names like Liberator, Champion, Crusader, Reaver, Tyrant, Blackguard, etc.).
Bard - Any alignment. Ditch the non-lawful thing. If a lawful herald to the king wants to give a stirring speech exhorting his lords troops to greatness on the eve of victory, that's totally appropriate.
Barbarian - Any alignment. Ditch the chaotic thing. Anyone can learn to channel their aggression / focus and get 'into the zone' where pain seems to go away and everybody else is moving in slow motion. Not everyone who plays raquetball like I do is Chaotic, after all...
Druid - Keep the 'Must have a Neutral component' aspect. It fits the idea that all Druids must maintain a certain level of detachment from the extremes of 'civilized' morality and ethics. They can still be colored by those views (NG, NE, LN, CN), but are less likely to be able to effectively interact with the natural forces that empower them if they lose touch with the natural world.