'Needs' is a bit strong. Why, given that it must be the single easiest house rule to impose, is there 'need' for it to be ditched?
There's an expression in the art world. It comes from Leonardo Da Vinci. Basically, you should only have something in a work if it contributes to the work.
So let's consider the alignment restriction from both a mechanics view and a thematic view. Mechanically, in 3E, the restriction did not exist as any form of game balance (or so I'm gathering that the designers have come out and said). In theory, the class would be at the power level it is supposed to be whether we have "Alignment: Lawful only" there or not. Ergo, the alignment restriction contributes nothing mechanically.
Thematically speaking, the Monk is supposed to develop his techniques via self-discipline. This does not require a lawful alignment (exemplified by my Riddick example (somewhere), the fact that Chaotic Wizards need not spend years in frat parties in order to learn their spells, and that Chaos Monks can do most of what a Monk can do and they're Chaotic). The phrase "Monks learn to develop their minds and their bodies through constant training and strong self-discipline" is sufficient to maintain the theme of the Monk. Ergo, the alignment restriction does not contribute in a thematic manner, either.
This would be alright if it didn't also take anything away. A good number of groups play under DMs that respond to houserules in a manner similar to this: "Eek! A new idea! Kill it!". This is an intergroup problem, but it is common to a good number of groups. Many players would play a Monk (suboptimal class features beside the point) except they don't want to get shanghaied into following a Lawful alignment (really important if their idea of Lawful differs from the DM's idea). Taking the alignment restriction out also makes the argument a moot point. Taking the alignment restriction doesn't take anything good away from the game and does take something bad out. It's more player friendly.
(really important if their idea of Lawful differs from the DM's idea)
And that's the real crux of the issue. I had a character who was extremely self-disciplined, and who viewed the universe as, at its basis, an orderly place with a clear structure. Lawful, right? But he hated society and lived in the woods, felt that tradition was pointless nonsense, and believed that his purpose in life was to defy authority figures. Chaotic, right? DM asked for his alignment (I guessed "chaotic good"), and then couldn't understand why I didn't act like a scatterbrained "artsy" type with no self-control. Take monk as a class? Good luck pal -- even a backstory in a monastery with a view that the government was actually interfering with the tao-like "natural" order didn't cut it. If the character sheet said CG, no monk. If the character sheet said LG, no defying the authorities and sneering at tradition.
Most DMs aren't that strict, but many of them are. And because alignment isn't a clear-cut, black-and-white deal in most cases, it makes an exceptionally poor mechanically "balancing" mechanism. Not that the monk or the paladin really need one, compared to the cleric...
|
There's an expression in the art world. It comes from Leonardo Da Vinci. Basically, you should only have something in a work if it contributes to the work.
Da Vinci wasn't engaged in trying to make a mostly backwards-compatible successor to a somewhat venerable game, however. The fact is that any DM can drop it really easily. However, for good or ill, it's part of the game since way back and because it's so easily houseruled out and because every change impairs backwards compatibility to some extent, I just don't see it being in the list of 'to 50 things to change'.
I'm not arguing that it's necessary to keep it, I'm arguing that 'needs' shouldn't be applied to ditching it. I have further argued (earlier) that because it's perhaps the easiest house rule of all to ditch, that anyone can go ahead and do it (and welcome to the land of the monk-barbarians!) so there is in fact almost no need for it to be one of the changes they make.
I realise it's a different company and all, but Guardians of Order have a great little thing in the front of all their books about how the rules are written on paper not on stone, and that great character ideas and concepts should be allowed to bend the rules if need to work, etc. al.
I think this is a case where you have to know your DM, know your players and have trust in each other. If you don't like how your DM is going to run things either DM yourself or find a new one. Otherwise learn to cope.
I like the alignment stuff being in the book, it helps anchor where the class is coming from and what it looks like in base form. I've seen over the years where little bits of information gets left out here or there as it was either "unnessecary" becuase it was obvious, "cause problems with fluff", or "we didn't have enough room" and soon newer players completely miss something of vital significance that explains why something is given at a certain point.
Case in point, I saw a thread where someone was complaining about elven racial abilities, they didn't understand why elves had immunity to sleep, or why elves where so long lived, etc. They also didn't know that most the monsters in the monster manual are straight out of mythology/folklore. Why? 1. Becuase they didn't read what little fluff there was. 2. They didn't know enough about the background cultures and mythology in general to understand were the abilities came from.
That lack of knowledge, and the lack of explaintion on the part of developers causes problems down the road for everyone.
Da Vinci wasn't engaged in trying to make a mostly backwards-compatible successor to a somewhat venerable game, however. The fact is that any DM can drop it really easily. However, for good or ill, it's part of the game since way back and because it's so easily houseruled out and because every change impairs backwards compatibility to some extent, I just don't see it being in the list of 'to 50 things to change'.
I'm not arguing that it's necessary to keep it, I'm arguing that 'needs' shouldn't be applied to ditching it. I have further argued (earlier) that because it's perhaps the easiest house rule of all to ditch, that anyone can go ahead and do it (and welcome to the land of the monk-barbarians!) so there is in fact almost no need for it to be one of the changes they make.
I had a longer reply but it got lost (a message saying the system administrator had been notified popped up, so it might reappear later). If it doesn't...
I disagree. "Needs" is the correct term to apply. If it's not contributing and actually serves as an impediment, then it does need to be changed. It might not be as important as consolidating all the different combat options into a Combat Maneuver Bonus or giving the Fighter actual class abilities, but it still needs to be changed.
In fact, you brought up a good point. Every change made impacts backwards compatibility, but I doubt that's the case with the Monk's alignment restrictions. And if it's not, then there's no reason not to make the change (especially considering now's the time to do it).
|
|
I disagree. "Needs" is the correct term to apply. If it's not contributing and actually serves as an impediment, then it does need to be changed.
That would only be defensible, it seems to me, if we had an idea of how many players do think of it as an impediment. The sample of "people that post in a Paizo boards thread on 'Retiring Alignment Requirements'" isn't telling us anything. We all have anecdotal experience, of course -- mine, going back to 1980, is entirely that players are OK with the restrictions, but yours presumably is different -- and if it wasn't so completely trivial for DMs to drop if they wanted to (and, as I say, why not just have an option for dropping it? What's the problem with that?) then I could see that trying to work out the general opinion would be a good idea, but it is trivial for any DM that doesn't want it, to drop it.
As I say, I'm cool with it as an option, although I guess that people that think it 'needs' to be dropped aren't (otherwise they wouldn't be saying 'needs'). In fact, it's almost so trivial to drop that it doesn't need to be an option, but in any case I'm not bothered if it is (it would only be a single line, after all, and I like options).
I almost agree with the need to find out how many people actually want to get rid of it.
The reason I don't fully agree is this: it doesn't take away anything to implement the change. Let's say, hypothetically, that 15% of people with an interest in playing Pathfinder want the change implemented. 85% do not. Well, it would seem that the change is unpopular and shouldn't be made. Except that what would the 85% be losing for Monks to be Alignment: Any? If they were going to play a Monk, then they'd be lawful before, and they'd be lawful post-change. On the other hand, the 15% get to, by RAW (which, unfortunately, is what some DMs adhere to religiously and won't hear a word against it), be the Monk they want to be.
The only thing of benefit that the alignment restriction offers is a tie to previous editions and a suggestion of how to perceive the character (both benefits retained with keeping the "self-discipline and training" bit in the fluff). So really, what would this theoretical 85% be losing were the change made? What is being imposed on them by the lesser 15%?
It seems to me that the lesser 15 lose pretty much nothing if it stays but it's an option. Or they just drop it themselves.
Except they can't drop it themselves. Those DMs that I was mentioning before? The ones that stick to RAW and nothing else? I have one. He goes by the book and nothing else (no, not even optional rules). And you know what? Otherwise, he's good. He's great. Right now, we're running Dawn of Defiance (again) and except for his weird ideas about what is and is not Dark Side Point worthy, the adventure is exciting, stays on track, easy to adjudicate, and is fun. The option of DM yourself or find another group is easy to say but not so easy to do.
So, yes, the lesser 15 are losing something. Even if it's an option.
|
I almost agree with the need to find out how many people actually want to get rid of it.
The reason I don't fully agree is this: it doesn't take away anything to implement the change. Let's say, hypothetically, that 15% of people with an interest in playing Pathfinder want the change implemented. 85% do not. Well, it would seem that the change is unpopular and shouldn't be made. Except that what would the 85% be losing for Monks to be Alignment: Any? If they were going to play a Monk, then they'd be lawful before, and they'd be lawful post-change. On the other hand, the 15% get to, by RAW (which, unfortunately, is what some DMs adhere to religiously and won't hear a word against it), be the Monk they want to be.
The only thing of benefit that the alignment restriction offers is a tie to previous editions and a suggestion of how to perceive the character (both benefits retained with keeping the "self-discipline and training" bit in the fluff). So really, what would this theoretical 85% be losing were the change made? What is being imposed on them by the lesser 15%?
Consequently, what do the lesser 15% lose by just houseruling it?
The majority, in this case, get an argument if they want to keep alignment restrictions in place if the rule is changed.
DM: I'm sorry, but I only allow Lawfully aligned monks.
Player: Well, that's not what the rulebook says...
At risk of repeating myself, it is the EASIEST houserule ever to do away with alignment restrictions.
As far as the "crunch" arguments go, I ask, will someone be kicking in your door if you handwave away alignment restrictions? Um, no. There is NO mechanical disadvantage to houseruling out alignment restrictions, period. Changing alignments is only a disadvantage if someone actually enforces the rule. If your DM does away with the restriction, there is no penalty.
(And, if you're a player arguing this because your DM won't let up on alignment restrictions, either roll with it or find another game. Otherwise, honestly, you sound like the person who gets mad because he just spent $30 on a splatbook without checking with the DM, and can't play his "factotem/uber-knight/deathwizard/whoopass" because the DM wants to keep it close to core. Remember, DMs put, in general, WAY more effort to make the weekly game happen than players do, and should be given a break if he feels more comfortable running his game a certain way...)
|
|
Except they can't drop it themselves. Those DMs that I was mentioning before? The ones that stick to RAW and nothing else? I have one. He goes by the book and nothing else (no, not even optional rules). And you know what? Otherwise, he's good. He's great. Right now, we're running Dawn of Defiance (again) and except for his weird ideas about what is and is not Dark Side Point worthy, the adventure is exciting, stays on track, easy to adjudicate, and is fun. The option of DM yourself or find another group is easy to say but not so easy to do.So, yes, the lesser 15 are losing something. Even if it's an option.
But then people that would want it back would have the same problem, plus it wouldn't even be anywhere as an option...
Not going to get into whether or not your DM has the approach you favour in all things, because I don't know either of you and I obviously wouldn't suggest that anyone should search out another group (because you are right, they're hard to find). However, I doubt that it's so very common, where all the players in a group want an long-standing but easily-dropped mechanic dropped and the DM just won't do it.
Except they can't drop it themselves. Those DMs that I was mentioning before? The ones that stick to RAW and nothing else? I have one. He goes by the book and nothing else (no, not even optional rules). And you know what? Otherwise, he's good. He's great. Right now, we're running Dawn of Defiance (again) and except for his weird ideas about what is and is not Dark Side Point worthy, the adventure is exciting, stays on track, easy to adjudicate, and is fun. The option of DM yourself or find another group is easy to say but not so easy to do.
So, yes, the lesser 15 are losing something. Even if it's an option.
What's in and out of a game is DM territory. If you're the DM you can tinker away. If you're not, I'd make the requests polite. If the DM doesn't go for it that's life. A lot of work goes into a game. DMs often have an opinion on their campaign. I do, and while players are free to make suggestions (which I've used any number of) ultimately it's my campaign. Little suggestions can often balloon out into considerable work for the DM. My answer to the paladin alignment issue was to homebrew a new class for my game (templars) with alignment / abilities appropriate to different religions. It took a serious amount of work to get it done properly, but has worked out really well. Of course you can always DM your own game. That's the sure way to get what you want :)
Remember, DMs put, in general, WAY more effort to make the weekly game happen than players do, and should be given a break if he feels more comfortable running his game a certain way...
Well, unless they make up the adventure as they go. Which some have been known to do.
The fact is that any DM can drop it really easily. However, for good or ill, it's part of the game since way back and because it's so easily houseruled out and because every change impairs backwards compatibility to some extent, I just don't see it being in the list of 'to 50 things to change'.
Who cares if it's part of the game since way back when? Is it a good rule? No? Then let's toss it out of the window already then and be done with it. Not every Monk is going to be kicking it Shaolin Style and not every Barbarian is going to have poor organizational or skills. And no, I don't feel like arguing with a DM or a Rules Lawyer because I decided to make a Neutral Barbarian or Monk and the rules specifically say that they can't be Neutral.
Who cares if it's part of the game since way back when? Is it a good rule? No? Then let's toss it out of the window already then and be done with it. Not every Monk is going to be kicking it Shaolin Style and not every Barbarian is going to have poor organizational or skills. And no, I don't feel like arguing with a DM or a Rules Lawyer because I decided to make a Neutral Barbarian or Monk and the rules specifically say that they can't be Neutral.
*shrug* Your'e always going to be arguing with a DM when you want to do / be something he doesn't want in his game. Whether it's his idea or just "the rules". What happens if Paizo drops the restriction, but your DM doesn't? Going to smack him over the head with the new (hardcover) final version of the PF RPG and tell him he has to? You can't always have what you want unless you *are* the DM, of course that could lead to a lonely game if you annoy all your players... but it's his call in the end. If he wanted non-lawful monks and lawful barbarians you'd have them now, right? I must say, if the whole point of this is to end-run a DM who is a stickler for the printed rules... you are ambitious sir! And evil... lawful (for wanting to use the rules) or chaotic (for trying to change them) that I'm not sure about :D
|
|
Who cares if it's part of the game since way back when? Is it a good rule? No? Then let's toss it out of the window already then and be done with it. Not every Monk is going to be kicking it Shaolin Style and not every Barbarian is going to have poor organizational or skills. And no, I don't feel like arguing with a DM or a Rules Lawyer because I decided to make a Neutral Barbarian or Monk and the rules specifically say that they can't be Neutral.
I still fail to understand why an option to discard alignment preferences is so unacceptable. Obviously, the option is implicitly there (it might be the easiest house rule of all) but I have no problem with it being explicitly there.
The fact is that it's part of the game and the feeling of playing D&D is important. D&D hasn't been the best game since, what, the late 70s, but it has developed and mostly improved, but other than the obvious advantages of being able to find a group in which to play because it's the world's biggest game, for a lot of us (not all, of course) the fun comes from the heritage of the game. Alignment is one of those things. An option to drop the requirements means we can both have what we want, modulo individuals' own pathological relationship with their DMs, which isn't really something the designers can legislate for.
But then people that would want it back would have the same problem, plus it wouldn't even be anywhere as an option...
Not going to get into whether or not your DM has the approach you favour in all things, because I don't know either of you and I obviously wouldn't suggest that anyone should search out another group (because you are right, they're hard to find). However, I doubt that it's so very common, where all the players in a group want an long-standing but easily-dropped mechanic dropped and the DM just won't do it.
How are the people who would want it back losing anything? "Oh, no, with the Monk's alignment being unrestricted, I can no longer be just as lawful as I was going to be anyway"? Take a look at the Swordsage. Except for the "Nine Swords disciplines" stuff, that class is just as "inner self-discipline and training"-esque as the Monk is, without an alignment restriction.
Really, I'm starting to fail to see how this is an argument. Current situation: 15% of people unhappy with the current alignment restrictions, 85% of people satisfied (either because they think it should be this way, or they don't care).
Proposed fix: 15% of people happy, portion of the 85% that didn't care still don't care, and portion of the 85% that did want to be lawful can still be just as lawful (and their views of the Monk no longer impose anything on anyone else). Where is the argument?
I don't believe that any of these restrictions should be retired. They are easily house-ruled, and any misconceptions about a particular campaign's alignment 'issues' for one of these classes could be easily mitigated by discussing the character concept with the GM prior to creating/importing the character into the campaign. I discuss character concepts with all of my players before beginning a campaign, just to insure there are no misunderstandings about what is expected.
So the argument boils down to whether the DM (who always has final say anyway) should be told how to rule right off the bat, or whether player options are the default assumption.
Say you want to play a chaotic-aligned monk. 4 possibilities (2 branches of 2 each):
1. Rules say no. DM is rigid. No chaotic monk for you.
2. Rules say no. DM is flexible in houseruling. Chaotic monk OK.
3. Rules say yes. DM follows them. Chaotic monk OK.
4. Rules say yes. DM refuses to follow them. No chaotic monk for you.
Either way the rules are stated, there's one chain that leads to player options, and one that denies them. The difference is, in specific case 4, above, the DM really has to go out of his way to be a dick in order for the player not to have those options.
|
|
Remember, DMs put, in general, WAY more effort to make the weekly game happen than players do, and should be given a break if he feels more comfortable running his game a certain way...Well, unless they make up the adventure as they go. Which some have been known to do.
Well, you know, there are exceptions...
So the argument boils down to whether the DM (who always has final say anyway) should be told how to rule right off the bat, or whether player options are the default assumption.
Say you want to play a chaotic-aligned monk. 4 possibilities (2 branches of 2 each):
1. Rules say no. DM is rigid. No chaotic monk for you.
2. Rules say no. DM is flexible in houseruling. Chaotic monk OK.
3. Rules say yes. DM follows them. Chaotic monk OK.
4. Rules say yes. DM refuses to follow them. No chaotic monk for you.Either way the rules are stated, there's one chain that leads to player options, and one that denies them. The difference is, in specific case 4, above, the DM really has to go out of his way to be a dick in order for the player not to have those options.
Pretty much what I said above this post. It's always been the DMs game to call, especially, it seems to me, in 3rd edition and 3.5. An awful lot of work has gone into my game over the years. A lot of thought goes into things like alignment restrictions, classes allowed, races allowed, gods, religions, etc.. I don't see dropping something different, and anachronistic, into my game without a lot more thought and reason than "it'll make this one guy happy". The game is cooperative but on questions of the game world it's not a democracy. And the ultimate authority on what goes in the game is not a player. It's the DM. Or the damn ninja catgirls would take over every campaign :D Anyway, leaving the alignment restrictions in place and figuring DMs who want to houserule it will do so seems far more reasonable than changing the core rules to accomodate someone's individual character concept. Whatever rules your using, they're bound to constrain someones vision of what their character should be. If you made every change needed to accomodate everyone's concepts you would end up without rules to speak of.
Anyway, leaving the alignment restrictions in place and figuring DMs who want to houserule it will do so seems far more reasonable than changing the core rules to accomodate someone's individual character concept. Whatever rules you[']r[e] using, they're bound to constrain someones vision of what their character should be. If you made every change needed to accomodate everyone's concepts you would end up without rules to speak of.
I disagree that it's as binary a thing as you claim (totally rigid rules vs. none at all). Also, as frequent DM, I don't view the game as my personal power trip. I like to start with rules that allow as many options as possible -- if a player has some idea for a concept, I try to work with him if at all possible. So, yes, I'm very confortable houseruling. You seem to be comfortable with at as well; I'm guessing you'd have no qualms about adding a rule that all paladins have to carry a token from their Lady Fair to avoid irrevocably losing all their powers, for example, if it seemed like a good idea to you.
The thing is, I personally like to build my own "fluff" for the campaign world, and I therefore don't really want purely flavor text like that in rules document -- and at the end of the day, that's what alignment restrictions amount to -- flavor text. They don't change the basic mechanics of the classes. To my mind, rules should focus on what to roll, and when; what abilities you gain at various levels; etc. They shouldn't contain things like "paladins are required to wear very shiny plate mail because they're knights in shining armor!" Likewise, I don't want "All monks are very traditional-minded folk who never disobey the law" in my rules document (although I wouldn't object if you changed "all" to "most"); that stuff is fluff masquerading as mechanics -- the very foundation of arbitrary rules with no purpose other than to force one person's personal vision onto the other participants.
Pretty much what I said above this post. It's always been the DMs game to call, especially, it seems to me, in 3rd edition and 3.5. An awful lot of work has gone into my game over the years. A lot of thought goes into things like alignment restrictions, classes allowed, races allowed, gods, religions, etc.. I don't see dropping something different, and anachronistic, into my game without a lot more thought and reason than "it'll make this one guy happy". The game is cooperative but on questions of the game world it's not a democracy. And the ultimate authority on what goes in the game is not a player. It's the DM. Or the damn ninja catgirls would take over every campaign :D Anyway, leaving the alignment restrictions in place and figuring DMs who want to houserule it will do so seems far more reasonable than changing the core rules to accomodate someone's individual character concept. Whatever rules your using, they're bound to constrain someones vision of what their character should be. If you made every change needed to accomodate everyone's concepts you would end up without rules to speak of.
"What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid (censored) the player's will go as well."
First, let's take a look at relatively minor rules that can (and do) easily get changed in a game.
Bards: Alignment: Any nonlawful. If the DM so wanted to allow, he could let a Bard player have his Bard be lawful. Now, if only Pathfinder could change the Bard alignment restrictions as well (wait, they did).
Monks: Weapon Proficiencies: no mention of unarmed strikes. In 3.5, by RAW, Monks are not listed as being proficient with simple weapons in general nor unarmed strikes specifically (or at least, he doesn't become proficient with them until Monk level 20, when he becomes an Outsider (a creature type that is proficient with all simple and martial weapons)). And yet, I don't think anyone ever plays a Monk like that (either because they never realized that little discrepancy or they found it and ignored it anyway). Now, if only Pathfinder could add in that Monks are proficient with their own unarmed strikes (wait, they did; in fact, everyone is proficient with their unarmed strikes).
The point is, the ease with which an idea can be made a houserule has absolutely no bearing on whether it can or should be made an official rule. So can we stop with "Just houserule it in"?
But now, I have to ask again, how does allowing Monks "Alignment: Any" constrain anything?
It's like that episode of Family Guy where Peter and Lois go and listen to a timeshare sales pitch in order to win a free boat.
"Now, hold on, Lois. A boat's a boat, but a mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat."
"Then why don't you just-"
"We'll take the box."
Current rules: a boat. Proposed rules: a mystery box that can still be a boat, but can also be something else. Except, it not like in the show where you end up with a surprise, but you can actually choose which alignment you want (something with a "Lawful" next to it, true Neutral, or what-have-you). So I want to know exactly what "Alignment: Any" constrains?
Alignment Restrictions aren't just fluff though, they can have real mechanical effects on the game (not being able to level in a class, losing class abilities for a paladin).
Some see certain Mechanics as being against a certain alignment, like the use of poison or Coup'd'grace attacks against sleeping foes not being allowed for "Good" alignments. Now these can cut in all directions but for the paladin and cleric classes there is extra potency behind it becuase they could lose their abilities from it.
I'm not saying this is always the case, usually alignment doesn't matter to wizards, rogues, and bards -- but it could be a point for some classes... which is how and why it limits them mechanically.
The problems start when people don't agree on what constitues acting in alignment, which is another problem all together.
Alignment Restrictions aren't just fluff though, they can have real mechanical effects on the game (not being able to level in a class, losing class abilities for a paladin).
But my point was that those are bad mechanics: effects that come into play only when the DM arbitrarily decrees that they do, not upon (for example) accumulating a set number of xp (as you hinted at the end of your post). I don't want or need rules that say, in essense, "any time the DM is annoyed with the player, he can claim that some vague alignment violation has occured, just to make life difficult or even impossible for that player's character." Yes, I know the DM can do that even without the printed rule, but the point is, he usually shouldn't. Some people might enjoy an exceptionally adversarial game, in which the DM randomly declares all sorts of misfortune by whim, and the players just curse him and suffer -- but there's no sense in setting up the rules so that this sort of scenario is a default. Saying paladins can't use poison or spells with the [evil] descriptor is a lot more reasonable than saying something like, "Your paladin failed to kowtow seventeen times to the king, and only did it fifteen, and that's a break with tradition and therefore a chaotic act, and so you can't gain levels anymore and you lose all your abilities."
If there were a scale of "alignment points," with gains/losses for concrete actions, and a point at which change occurred, then we'd have a non-arbitrary mechanical rule. Just saying "monks have to be lawful" is fluff (aka DM fiat) claiming to be a mechanic, akin to a rule saying "damage isn't rolled for; it's just decided by the DM on the spot."
|
|
Kirth, by reading your post I get the impression you expect the DM will eventually use a player's alignment as a weapon or punishment against that PC, regardless of the group's playstyle or harmony. If that is the case you are making, I disagree.
I respect and appreciate the 'sacred cows' of alignment restriction, although I certainly allow exceptions. I think in a game with near limitless variation, there will always be exceptions to a particular rule. BUT, those are still exceptions. The restrictions as written form part of the basis for the game. They are part of the setting and contribute to a flavor of fantasy that is palatable to me and my table. As alignment forces have tangible effects in the game world, they provide direct benefits or barriers to the PCs. To me, alignment restrictions are part of The World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game.
I also agree that the name 'paladin' is fitting for a LG class because of its origins and history, while '(un)holy warrior' might be a better fit for crusaders and champions of other alignments.
|
|
Kirth Gersen,
After re-reading your post several times, I see another aspect to your arguement: That the problem with alignment restriction is that the rules are badly written.
If this is the point, again I disagree. The rules are not concrete or point-based, certainly. They just can't be when dealing with something as vague as alignment which itself is (often intentionally) left vague. As the alignment system is not nailed down, neither can its offspring 'alignment restrictions' be set in stone. This is a good thing, imo. It leaves room for interpretation by the DMs and players. This will cause arguements for some, but it also creates a world uniquely suited to those players' perceptions.
After re-reading your post several times, I see another aspect to your argument: That the problem with alignment restriction is that the rules are badly written. If this is the point, again I disagree. The rules are not concrete or point-based, certainly. They just can't be when dealing with something as vague as alignment which itself is (often intentionally) left vague. As the alignment system is not nailed down, neither can its offspring 'alignment restrictions' be set in stone. This is a good thing, imo. It leaves room for interpretation by the DMs and players. This will cause arguments for some, but it also creates a world uniquely suited to those players' perceptions.
I'm obviously explaining poorly; I apologize. Bear with me, if you will, and I'll try and clarify. It's not so much that I think they're badly-written; it's the fact that they potentially end a character's career, and yet the DM is given no solid guidelines whatsoever for when that occurs. Loss of abilities by combat, trap, spell, or old age is given very strict rules; but loss of abilities by alignment isn't. Now, I agree it's inevitable that, sooner or later, a DM will end up making any number of calls "on the fly," so to speak; that's understood. I also understand that it's to many DMs' preference that they be given no solid rules in many areas, so that they can be as strict or as lax as they like.
But to potentially require the DM to strip a character of all his class abilities, and then give no concrete guidelines for so doing, strikes me as implying that the "game world" is, at its very core, arbitrary and chaotic. Which flies in the face of the well-codified, strict numerical guidelines for poisons, monster attacks, spells, aging, etc. My preferred solution would be the following:
Instead, we have clear, rigid rules for character height (which has no in-game effect), and essentially no rules at all for alignment (which we nonetheless attach to extreme in-game effects). That's what really bugs me. It's like having strict numerical rules for fingernail polish colors, but leaving spell effects up to the DM's whim. So, I'd like for alignment rules either to be clear-cut (in which case class restrictions make perfect sense, and are equally clear-cut), or -- even better -- to remain vague, so that people can color them as they like, but in that case they should have no strict effect on class abilities, either.
So you are saying that for example the paladin, should have a strict code of what will break his oaths, costing him his class abilities, instead of just "Oh yeah code of conduct... um... be LG double plus good ok?"
I could go with that.
Yep, I agree. That's a good way of saying it. Alignment restrictions have poorly defined parameters with well-defined consequences of not being followed (to a lesser extent, this is also the problem with the Paladin's Code of Conduct, but at last I checked, that was being discussed and the possibility of putting it in an "I, Robot" hierarchy had been suggested). But with law reflecting everything from an ordered lifestyle to undying loyalty to the empire (and of course, since one doesn't necessitate the other, both of them being lumped under "lawful" is unfair), we get confusion over whether someone is being lawful or not, but we know exactly how he's going to pay if he fails.
So clearly defined parameters for alignment is the only fair way to keep alignment restrictions (compare the Knight's Code (PHB II) to the Paladin's Code of Conduct), but since alignment is far harder to quantify than "don't attack flat-footed people, don't take a bonus for flanking, don't deal lethal damage to helpless foes", the real only fair thing to do is to scrap alignment restrictions.
Scrapping alignment restrictions would fundamentally change the nature of both the monk and the paladin - not so much for the bard. Traditionally, monks and paladins who fail to follow the tenets of their order are disgraced, lose benefits, and perhaps have to find a new job. It's an inherent aspect of those archetypes in fiction.
Clearly defined parameters for alignment aren't really the issue. Clearly defined parameters for the respective character class, that seems to be where the real issue lies. I don't think that the rule set, being non-campaign specific, should rigidly define those. What's right for a particular order in one campaign world might not be right in another. That's why any player choosing to run one of these characters should go over these issues with the GM prior to starting the character. I've seen well-defined, rigid rules for alignment and the pages of text and tables (ad nauseum) were amusing, but not useful in the long run. It was just too painful to use.
I dunno...I've had Ham steaks, Lamb steaks, Deer steaks, Horse steaks, Fish steaks...all kinds of steaks. yes you can only get beef steak from a cow, but if you choose to qualify it like that then you can also only get cow milk from a cow.Hmmm... that's a lot of steak! Someone have some A-1 sauce and a knife?
*BUuuuuRP!* Wow, there seemed like alot more steak than that, and did someone say they had milk?
|
Scrapping alignment restrictions would fundamentally change the nature of both the monk and the paladin - not so much for the bard.
I'm pretty much in favor of ignoring the Barbarian and Bard alignment restrictions. Someone should be able to channel a cold fury like a Dwarven Battlerager, or sing a stirring exhortation of his lord's troops before battle like a herald or high chorister, without being unable to function in society.
I'm in favor of keeping the Druid and Paladin alignment restrictions (but also allowing Holy Warriors / Crusaders / Champions of other alignments).
I'm not a fan of Monks being limited to Lawful alignments, but I never play the darn things anyway (and I don't think opening up their alignment would change that), so I don't really have a horse in that race.
|
|
Thanks Kirth Gersen, that does make sense. You have a valid point, although I am at a loss for solving the issue.
Basically, the problem is vague guidelines with harsh consequences. That is not the best mix in most situations. I've always considered the paladin a 'special' base class, and I stress those restrictions to my players. Although this has worked for me, perhaps there should be a better system.
*shrug* Your'e always going to be arguing with a DM when you want to do / be something he doesn't want in his game. Whether it's his idea or just "the rules". What happens if Paizo drops the restriction, but your DM doesn't? Going to smack him over the head with the new (hardcover) final version of the PF RPG and tell him he has to? You can't always have what you want unless you *are* the DM, of course that could lead to a lonely game if you annoy all your players... but it's his call in the end. If he wanted non-lawful monks and lawful barbarians you'd have them now, right? I must say, if the whole point of this is to end-run a DM who is a stickler for the printed rules... you are ambitious sir! And evil... lawful (for wanting to use the rules) or chaotic (for trying to change them) that I'm not sure about :D
Rules Lawyers follow rules.
Change the rules, and in time, the Rules Lawyers will follow.
I still fail to understand why an option to discard alignment preferences is so unacceptable. Obviously, the option is implicitly there (it might be the easiest house rule of all) but I have no problem with it being explicitly there.
Because I shouldn't be saddled with bad crunch to maintain your fluff.
|
|
Because I shouldn't be saddled with bad crunch to maintain your fluff.
Rules options are crunch. An option to remove some rule is crunch. You get your crunch, but you appear to only want that crunch if there's a break with the general continuity (and some people will, in fact, like that crunch) and also you only appear to want that crunch if the other people, who see it as desirable fluff with which they're happy, don't get it as well. I guess there's not much common ground between my position (have dropping alignment restrictions as an option) and yours (drop alignment restrictions) after all.
Rules options are crunch. An option to remove some rule is crunch. You get your crunch, but you appear to only want that crunch if there's a break with the general continuity (and some people will, in fact, like that crunch) and also you only appear to want that crunch if the other people, who see it as desirable fluff with which they're happy, don't get it as well. I guess there's not much common ground between my position (have dropping alignment restrictions as an option) and yours (drop alignment restrictions) after all.
Unfortunately, I think that's how it's looking. And here's why.
Rules options are not crunch. Crunch is the default setup of the rules. An example of an option that actually exists as crunch would be the Rogue's Alignment: Any. The default rules assume you get the options allowed by that language (i.e., you can be any of all the nine alignments you want to be). Another example would be starting character wealth. Once you have your wealth, you then spend it on what you will (so long as you can afford it). There aren't any rules for "Paladins have to buy a sword" or "Monks have to buy a set of monk's robes" or even "Rogues have to buy a theives kit".
A sidebar, on the other hand, would be what the variant rules in the 3.5 DMG were. An alternative method of handling weapons from different size categories, or the other way to calculate when a save against massive damage is necessary (based on creature size, rather than a straight up number). Even though those variant rules (in a sidebar, even) are written in the core rulebooks, they do not qualify as the core rules. All they are is just houserules; the only difference is that WotC came up with them and put them in a book rather than one of the group's players or the group's DM coming up with them. A sidebar for letting Monks be any alignment would be the same thing.
I'm still not understanding why this argument is here.
Putting Alignment: Any in the Monk's class description (as the default rules and not some option) does not prevent players from playing lawful Monks.
Leaving the fluff in the class description (self-discipline, years of training, etc.) while changing how that discipline is perceived from a rules viewpoint (just because a person is lawful and ordered in their daily regimen has nothing to do with their outlook on society nor whether they're "powered" by some cosmic force of law; see Chaos Monk) does not take away from the traditional (from a previous editions point of view) image of the Monk.
DMs in games where this change would be implemented are not now prevented from using pre-published settings with monasteries established as centers nor are they prevented from coming up with their own monasteries and describing them as the places where some people (described in in-game, out-of-character terms as Monks) learn their arts in a lawful way.
And what part of backwards compatibility does changing this particular rule impact, anyway?
|
|
Rules options are not crunch. Crunch is the default setup of the rules.
I entirely disagree. WotC produced tons of crunch books that were full of optional rules (DMs could allow or ignore anything from them and still be playing D&D 'by the book'). I don't see why having an option in the Core Rules somehow makes it 'not crunch' when it would be crunch in a book of non-Core Rules.
And what part of backwards compatibility does changing this particular rule impact, anyway?
Not a huge amount, presumably, for the same reason that it'd be trivial to house-rule out. However, it's a break in continuity which, in my opinion, has no meritorious purpose at all as a definitive rule change but which would be the easiest houserule of all.
Not picking on anyone in particular, but it seems to me that some people may feel that their DM is too core-bound and rejects options and see the fix to that to be changing the core. Why else wouldn't an option to drop alignment restrictions be OK, given the trivial ease of house-ruling it, if not for an imperative to enforce new core on DMs?
I entirely disagree. WotC produced tons of crunch books that were full of optional rules (DMs could allow or ignore anything from them and still be playing D&D 'by the book'). I don't see why having an option in the Core Rules somehow makes it 'not crunch' when it would be crunch in a book of non-Core Rules.
Because allowing stuff from those books didn't require changes to existing rules. Allowing binding or truenaming has nothing to do with how spellcasting functions. Putting in skill tricks doesn't change regular skills or feats. Putting in maneuvers or psychic powers or incarnum magic doesn't change anything in the core rules. It may add to them, but nothing's being replaced.
On the other hand, we have Unearthed Arcana (and the few variant rules in the 3.5 DMG). In order to implement fractional base attack bonuses and save bonuses, the normal method (based on individual classes) must be thrown out. In order to put in massive damage based on size, the base 50 massive damage rule must be thrown out. Similarly, in order to put in alignment: any for a Monk, alignment: any lawful must be thrown out (the problem being that "any lawful" is the default).
Not a huge amount, presumably, for the same reason that it'd be trivial to house-rule out. However, it's a break in continuity which, in my opinion, has no meritorious purpose at all as a definitive rule change but which would be the easiest houserule of all.
Not picking on anyone in particular, but it seems to me that some people may feel that their DM is too core-bound and rejects options and see the fix to that to be changing the core. Why else wouldn't an option to drop alignment restrictions be OK, given the trivial ease of house-ruling it, if not for an imperative to enforce new core on DMs?
Where's the continuity being broken? The fluff would still be the same. Is it like the Bard being allowed to be lawful? Because that's an easy houserule. Because that could just as easily be solved on a group-by-group basis, just like letting Monks be whatever alignment they want. Because doesn't that also break with continuity?
Seriously, I'm getting (not necessarily from you) a feeling of "It's no skin off my nose" vibe. Changing the rule doesn't take anything of consequence away from the people who like Monks where they are, but leaving it in does interfere with those few of use who'd love to play a Monk without the hassle.
|
|
Unearthed Arcana was a book of optional crunch. I like options (being a Rolemaster fan, I guess I would).
Seriously, I'm getting (not necessarily from you) a feeling of "It's no skin off my nose" vibe. Changing the rule doesn't take anything of consequence away from the people who like Monks where they are, but leaving it in does interfere with those few of use who'd love to play a Monk without the hassle.
We may have different understandings of what "It's no skin off my nose" means, or else I am being unclear, because I do care about this issue (which is why I've posted so much in this thread).
How does dropping the alignment restriction not affect people who like the current 3.5 state of play but somehow not dropping doesn't affect those that don't? Yes, in both cases a houserule could be made. One is the existing state of play since forever (so far as Monks are concerned) and one is a change. Default position for me is no change unless it's obvious why it has to happen. I am less convinced that it needs to be changed than I was before I entered this discussion, which is to say that I am now more of the opinion that it should be left unchanged, although I'm obviously OK, as I have said, with it being an option. The reason for this is that before I hadn't thought about it too much and now I've been debating, I don't see any real merit to the "it must be changed in core" argument of you and others. Likewise, I presume you don't really see the merit of my arguments. One side is going to be disappointed then, I guess, given that "Option: ignore alignment requirements" is not an acceptable position for you guys and "There are no alignment requirements but you can always house rule them back in" isn't an acceptable position for me.
As for "continuity" I see it as "things not really changing". It can be a good thing or a bad thing; I default to it when I don't think that the proposed changes have merit, as you probably do, too (so what we really disagree about is the merit of "Drop alignment restrictions and not as an option" vs "Keep alignment restrictions and stick an option in to drop it".
Hold on. I think I've figured out a part of your thought process. Let's see if an analogy can do it.
Current situation. There is no broadsword weapon. Suggestion: put in a broadsword. Those who want to use it can have it, those that don't can leave it alone. Just because the broadsword is added to the list of weapons in the game doesn't mean anyone is required to use them.
So in the case of the Monk, I don't see the situation being the same. Any game with the alignment restrictions has to make a houserule to allow an unallowed Monk. On the other hand, a game without the alignment restrictions run by a DM with players who don't mind or prefer using only lawful Monks still doesn't need a houserule. The DM can just simply only make his NPC Monks lawful. The players can just simply put an "L" on their character sheet. Why would a houserule be necessary? What's stopping a group that likes Monks just being lawful from just having Monks that are lawful?
|
|
What's stopping a group that likes Monks just being lawful from just having Monks that are lawful?
What's stopping a group who likes monks of any alignment from being any alignment? This whole argument is circular, and, franky, if 85% of a customer base prefers things one way, and 15% prefers it another, smart money is on the larger customer base...
Again, DROPPING ALIGNMENT RESTRICTIONS IS THE EASIEST HOUSERULE EVER.
Raisin Bran, by default, has cereal flakes and raisins, but no almonds. Maybe a lot of people like almond slivers in it, too, though. Currently, those people have to buy almond slivers and add them separately, which is a pain, because sometimes the store only has whole almonds, not the little slivers.
So they petition Kellogg's to make Raisin Bran with Almonds. Kellogg's realizes that they have an overstock of almond slivers from some other product, so all they'd have to do is change the title on the box and they could market the new product. Original Raisin Bran (without) would still be available.
But there's always a large group who screams, "Raisin Bran, by definition, has no almonds! How can it be Raisin Bran if it has almonds in it?! People who want almonds can just add their own -- that will keep this abomination off our shelves!" And they boycott Kellogg's and lobby for a constitutional amendment to ban almonds in Raisin Bran.
"Chaotic monks? Start the picket line!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raisin Bran, by default, has cereal flakes and raisins, but no almonds. Maybe a lot of people like almond slivers in it, too, though. Currently, those people have to buy almond slivers and add them separately, which is a pain, because sometimes the store only has whole almonds, not the little slivers.
So they petition Kellogg's to make Raisin Bran with Almonds. Kellogg's realizes that they have an overstock of almond slivers from some other product, so all they'd have to do is change the title on the box and they could market the new product. Original Raisin Bran (without) would still be available.
But there's always a large group who screams, "Raisin Bran, by definition, has no almonds! How can it be Raisin Bran if it has almonds in it?!" And they boycott Kellogg's and lobby for a constitutional amendment to ban almonds in Raisin Bran.
"Chaotic monks? Start the picket line!"
Dude, you can't use the "breakfast cereal" analogy. That's a low blow...
Fight fair, dammit!
Dude, you can't use the "breakfast cereal" analogy. That's a low blow... Fight fair, dammit!
See, there you go with the restrictions again. No bringing guns to the weekend game. No mentioning Canada's crime stats. No breakfast cereal analogies. No chaotic monks. Jeez!
|
|
Dude, you can't use the "breakfast cereal" analogy. That's a low blow... Fight fair, dammit!See, there you go with the restrictions again. No bringing guns to the weekend game. No mentioning Canada's crime stats. No breakfast cereal analogies. No chaotic monks. Jeez!
That is ironic, considering my backround, no?
(and, for the record, i completely houseruled out alignments in my homebrew in 1985, even more irony :) )
(and, for the record, i completely houseruled out alignments in my homebrew in 1985, even more irony :) )
I used a 2-tiered system: for mortals, they're optional, flavor-only; for outsiders, they matter, as demons, angels, etc. represent the embodiment of universal principles.