|
(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.
Yeah, I did something similar for outsiders as well, for the same reason. Mortals are ambiguous (the blackguard who tortures prisoners and razes towns to the ground, but has a soft spot for children and puppies...), but outsiders are the archetypes incarnate of mortal philosophical leanings...
|
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.
Yes indeed.
Again, DROPPING ALIGNMENT RESTRICTIONS IS THE EASIEST HOUSERULE EVER.
Well, adding them would be just as easy, if they weren't already there...
|
|
Again, DROPPING ALIGNMENT RESTRICTIONS IS THE EASIEST HOUSERULE EVER.Well, adding them would be just as easy, if they weren't already there...
I was just agreeing with the statement (your quote makes it look like rather I said it, although to be fair I already did say that, earlier on) but sure, that's entirely true. The tiebreaker for me -- given that I have no sympathy for the arguments of the people saying that the restrictions pretty much have to go -- is that, as you point out, it's already there.
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.
That makes no sense at all. Why make the class work for 85% of people when you can make it work for 100% of people?
Think of it this way. I'm a DM and I want to create an order of Knights of the Court (not holy or unholy knights, but secular knights). I also use the Fighter class as the mechanical representation of these Knights. So what do I do? Do I implement a houserule requiring all Fighters to be Alignment: Any Lawful? No, of course not. I just simply put an "L" in the alignment boxes of the character sheets of all those NPCs.
Or let's say I'm a player and I likewise want to be a Knight (maybe even a Knight in that order of Knights my DM told us about). I also use a Fighter. Do I then ask the DM to make all Fighters lawful? No, I just simply make sure that my Fighter is lawful.
Nothing about changing the alignment restriction hampers with players imagining their own individual Monk characters as ascetic kung fu warriors, nor does it hamper a DM who wants to create an (or use an already published) monastery full of martial artists who are lawful in every aspect of their lives (view of society, respect for authority, and self-discipline).
So, to answer Bagpuss's question, I'll ask one of my own. What has more merit, the current situation (works for a majority, but not everyone), or the proposed fix (which as far as I can tell, wouldn't require any sacrifice on the part of those who can already use the Monk class for whatever they need it for)?
And to define what I meant earlier, when you're going to use the Monk for a lawful character and you can do it with or without the alignment restrictions, but someone else who'd like to use the Monk class for what they want but can't because of the alignment restrictions, then that's what I mean by "no skin of your nose". The Monk works for you either way, but one way works for more people and it's advocated against?
And just because something is an easy houserule to make doesn't mean it isn't also an easy core rule change to make.
Derek's a rabid 1e fanboy. Anything it says there is law for him.
Not that that's a bad thing, mind you: I'd like to see a lot more of 1e in Pathfinder myself. But lawful alignments for monks isn't really one of the things I worry about too much, compared to making monks a viable class again -- which will happen as soon as the basic 3e combat assumptions are re-examined for all the ways in which they hamstring all martial classes.
|
|
Derek's a rabid 1e fanboy. Anything it says there is law for him.
Not that that's a bad thing, mind you: I'd like to see a lot more of 1e in Pathfinder myself. But lawful alignments for monks isn't really one of the things I worry about too much, compared to making monks a viable class again -- which will happen as soon as the basic 3e combat assumptions are re-examined for all the ways in which they hamstring all martial classes.
Absolutely, this isn't one of the pressing issues. Which is part of why I think that it should be ignored...
|
|
That makes no sense at all. Why make the class work for 85% of people when you can make it work for 100% of people?
People who like it in there will then have a class that doesn't work for them. I don't see why you aren't prepared to have dropping alignment restrictions as an option, because this is somehow unacceptable, but are convinced that there's no impact on the people that do like it if it's dropped (which is the implication of your statement that it will work for 100% of people). Also, are 15% of D&Ders really in the situation of, firstly, wanting alignment restrictions dropped and, secondly, stuck with a DM that's stuck to the rules and won't consider it on its merits and, thirdly, are completely unhappy with the idea of it being an option? Where do you get that number of 15%? Also, to whichi Kirth alludes, isn't it likely that more people are concerned that the monk is a somewhat crappy class at higher levels (which plays to my point that it's not important enough to change given the other challenges)?
It seems to me that the key factor is that it's already in there and has been for 30-ish years. If it wasn't in there and I wanted it in, I'd house-rule it, but it is in there and, for me, the presumption is that things that aren't necessary to change, or that can easily be changed with houserules or with an option (and this might be the simplest option ever), should default to staying as they are.
b. I houseruled the living daylights out of 1e, including getting rid of mortal alignments all together.
Worse than we'll end up doing with Pathfinder? I hestitate to imagine...
|
|
b. I houseruled the living daylights out of 1e, including getting rid of mortal alignments all together.Worse than we'll end up doing with Pathfinder? I hestitate to imagine...
Well, my version of 1e wound up looking like Warhammer squeezed through a rolemaster meatgrinder, sprinkled with a little Runequest, all done in AD&D terms...
So, if that qualifies as "worse"...
Well, my version of 1e wound up looking like Warhammer squeezed through a rolemaster meatgrinder, sprinkled with a little Runequest, all done in AD&D terms... So, if that qualifies as "worse"...
Kind of the like the AD&D using James Bond 007 rules played in the Amber Diceless universe I used to run...
People who like it in there will then have a class that doesn't work for them. I don't see why you aren't prepared to have dropping alignment restrictions as an option, because this is somehow unacceptable, but are convinced that there's no impact on the people that do like it if it's dropped (which is the implication of your statement that it will work for 100% of people). Also, are 15% of D&Ders really in the situation of, firstly, wanting alignment restrictions dropped and, secondly, stuck with a DM that's stuck to the rules and won't consider it on its merits and, thirdly, are completely unhappy with the idea of it being an option? Where do you get that number of 15%? Also, to whichi Kirth alludes, isn't it likely that more people are concerned that the monk is a somewhat crappy class at higher levels (which plays to my point that it's not important enough to change given the other challenges)?
It seems to me that the key factor is that it's already in there and has been for 30-ish years. If it wasn't in there and I wanted it in, I'd house-rule it, but it is in there and, for me, the presumption is that things that aren't necessary to change, or that can easily be changed with houserules or with an option (and this might be the simplest option ever), should default to staying as they are.
The "15%" was an arbitrary number I came up with off the top of my head as a for instance. I have no idea of what the actual figure is.
...
I would really love to know how changing the alignment restriction to "not being there" doesn't work for the people who like it as is. Current situation: Monk class allows any lawful; ergo, a player who wants to create a lawful Monk can. Proposed situation: Monk class allows any alignment (including lawful); ergo, a player who wants to create a lawful Monk still can. So how would that class not work for them?
|
|
Because they like the rule there; they like the restriction, which makes sense to them (I'm not entirely in that camp, but I have been playing (A)D&D for a long time -- 28 years -- so I'm used enough to it that it's a part of the fabric of the game, to me). They'd have to rule it back in, and they could do, just as you could rule it out. So, it would bother them to have it dropped as much as it bothers you not to have it dropped (and I don't really understand your assessment of the value of unsatisfactoriness of an option to drop it, except that it seems to me that options on classes to impose alignment restrictions would presumably annoy the people that like them as much as their absence bothers you).
And on another point, the idea that was posted by someone else earlier that sacred cows are basically there to provide steak (or perhaps that was in another thread) neglects the value of brand/game continuity, I think. Where you can contribute to that by keeping rules items that are trivial to drop, or option out, then that's a good thing.
My post about 40 posts back got eaten, so for the sake of posterity I shall post again. Its related to a post I made in the Pathfinder Prestige Class thread.
I devised and used the favored class = +1 skill points house rule for a few years before PF, and I've expanded it to other arenas. Consider "favored alignment" for certain classes, like monk, barbarian, and bard. If you are of that alignment, you get the extra skill point per level. If not, you don't.
Simple as that, creates a reinforcement of the "classic" archetypes, but doesn't actively prevent the exploration of new ideas.
|
|
My post about 40 posts back got eaten, so for the sake of posterity I shall post again. Its related to a post I made in the Pathfinder Prestige Class thread.
I devised and used the favored class = +1 skill points house rule for a few years before PF, and I've expanded it to other arenas. Consider "favored alignment" for certain classes, like monk, barbarian, and bard. If you are of that alignment, you get the extra skill point per level. If not, you don't.
Simple as that, creates a reinforcement of the "classic" archetypes, but doesn't actively prevent the exploration of new ideas.
That might be a cool development for people like me that want the alignment restrictions in there (even though they now wouldn't be restrictions, as such), but I doubt that the "alignment restrictions must be dropped" gang would go for it...
That might be a cool development for people like me that want the alignment restrictions in there (even though they now wouldn't be restrictions, as such), but I doubt that the "alignment restrictions must be dropped" gang would go for it...
I'd go for it.
Because they like the rule there; they like the restriction, which makes sense to them (I'm not entirely in that camp, but I have been playing (A)D&D for a long time -- 28 years -- so I'm used enough to it that it's a part of the fabric of the game, to me). They'd have to rule it back in, and they could do, just as you could rule it out. So, it would bother them to have it dropped as much as it bothers you not to have it dropped (and I don't really understand your assessment of the value of unsatisfactoriness of an option to drop it, except that it seems to me that options on classes to impose alignment restrictions would presumably annoy the people that like them as much as their absence bothers you).
Why would they have to rule it back in, though? Player wants to be a lawful Monk; therefore, he plays a lawful Monk. The only reason I could see him asking the DM to institute a houserule to the effect of restricting the alignments is because Joe Average also in their group wants to play a Monk (that is, a mystic unarmed fighter) without necessarily being lawful. And if the first player's enjoyment of his character is dependent on Joe's not being able to play the character he wants to play, then that's something that I strongly disagree that the rules of the game should encourage. Part of the fabric of the game for a long time or not.
Same thing from the DM's point of view. His capacity for creating a monastery is in no way affected by Joe's character. If he's going to be a jerk about it (and provided that the character isn't created solely to break a game (which I don't see the unlawful martial artist as doing that), that's how I see the idea of "No, you can't play the character you want to play"), then he should be a jerk solely through his capacity as DM; it, too, shouldn't be encouraged by the rules.
See, the problem here is that in the early history of the game, those classes were created with a specific feel in mind. Paladins were lawful good holy warriors with Codes of Conduct. Monks were lawful mystic martial artists. But a base class shouldn't do that. There shouldn't be a Paladin class, there should be a Holy Warrior class, the Paladin being the lawful good example of that. (Thank you, Pathfinder Campaign Setting.) Monks are the closest thing to an unarmed unarmored martial artist and that's what the class should be, especially since creating the class in such a way doesn't interfere with more specific views of how the class would operate (he's an unarmed martial artist, but he's also an ascetic scholar).
It's a basic rule of homebrewing. You're certainly allowed to create a class solely to fit your needs, but it'll be more successful if it's broad enough to encompass a wide variety of uses. That right there is what makes a successful class. The Fighter's strongest selling point is that he's moldable into whatever you need him to be. The Rogue's selling point is his many skill points and the long list of class skills. For the full casters, it's their spells.
|
|
My point is about "some players/DMs/groups like monks having to be lawful, the way they always have been", not "some players want to play a lawful monk". I can't believe you seriously thought I was claiming that dropping alignment restrictions would somehow prevent that, so am bemused as to how I have been unclear. The thread is about alignment restrictions and I'm talking about alignment restrictions, not what they allow but what they forbid. As for why they're there, mostly I'm talking about the fact that they are and that dropping them is as easy as the DM saying "I'm dropping alignment restrictions (although for me, the 'feel' of the classes is there and should be; I don't agree with you on the subject of what core/base classes ought to be).
My point is about "some players/DMs/groups like monks having to be lawful, the way they always have been", not "some players want to play a lawful monk". I can't believe you seriously thought I was claiming that dropping alignment restrictions would somehow prevent that, so am bemused as to how I have been unclear. The thread is about alignment restrictions and I'm talking about alignment restrictions, not what they allow but what they forbid. As for why they're there, mostly I'm talking about the fact that they are and that dropping them is as easy as the DM saying "I'm dropping alignment restrictions (although for me, the 'feel' of the classes is there and should be; I don't agree with you on the subject of what core/base classes ought to be).
"The way they always have been" You know, the same could be said about Gygaxian stat generation, THAC0, and the rule that Psionics rules have to be broken, but they all changed. So I don't consider that to be a good excuse. Hence, you should believe that's what I thought you thought, because it never occurred to me that "the way they always have been" was really important here (it still doesn't).
As for alignment restrictions being there because they are there, we're in the Beta playtest of Pathfinder and it isn't finalized yet. So I consider that to be in limbo and not a reason in and of itself. Dropping the alignment restrictions from the rules is as easy as a player saying "I was going to be lawful, I think I'll still be lawful".
The feel of the classes is there and should be? Not everyone has the same view of what a class is, and I don't believe they should have to in order to enjoy all the rest of what a game system offers. That's why I believe base classes should be as broad and encompassing as possible.
|
|
"The way they always have been" You know, the same could be said about Gygaxian stat generation, THAC0, and the rule that Psionics rules have to be broken, but they all changed. So I don't consider that to be a good excuse. Hence, you should believe that's what I thought you thought, because it never occurred to me that "the way they always have been" was really important here (it still doesn't).
As for alignment restrictions being there because they are there, we're in the Beta playtest of Pathfinder and it isn't finalized yet. So I consider that to be in limbo and not a reason in and of itself. Dropping the alignment restrictions from the rules is as easy as a player saying "I was going to be lawful, I think I'll still be lawful".
The feel of the classes is there and should be? Not everyone has the same view of what a class is, and I don't believe they should have to in order to enjoy all the rest of what a game system offers. That's why I believe base classes should be as broad and encompassing as possible.
Yeah, as we have already established, we completely disagree on a lot of things.
I am in the camp of "Leave alignment restrictions (and alignment itself for that matter) in the rules of the game but house rule them out if you and your group agree to play without them".
I think it is much more appropriate to house rule out a rule like alignment restrictions than it is to house rule them in especially when they can be a contentious issue to try and include back into the game. With this in mind, alignment and classes with alignment restrictions has been part of D&D all along and pathfinder is built on the roots of that game. So in my opinion, the default mode for alignment restrictions should be to include them in the core rules.
Except why would anyone ever need to houserule them back in in the first place? The DM doesn't need to do so in order to run what it is a DM runs (his own NPCs, his own environment), nor does the other player. This honestly just sounds like, "But, but, but I don't want Joe to play the character he wants to play".
I've already said my piece about past conditions/mistakes of the game being propagated in current editions, so I'll leave that alone.
I just have to say, congratulations to the Fighter class. Whatever else you say about it, it at least has been flavor neutral for the recent past editions of the game. You need a thug, you're good to go. You need a berserker fighter (exact same backstory as a Barbarian, just with Fighter mechanics), you're good to go. You need a knight in shining armor, you're good to go. Apparently, the only reason Monks don't get it this good is because they were originally conceived with one specific outlook and now we're still paying for it.
And I say "still paying for it" because I just simply don't believe that an optional sidebar would do enough. Here's a scenario: the DM plays RAW. He doesn't allow anything that's not the default rules of the game. Otherwise, he DMs rather well (and/or the player has no other group to go to that's also playing Pathfinder).
That's a very specific series of circumstances, right? When would that situation ever really come up? IMO, as often as the "need" to houserule alignment restrictions back in.
Which is why I'm not understanding the purpose behind this argument. Why have the rules where they (by themselves) can work for almost everyone when they can work for everyone (except what I perceive as whiners because Joe Average gets to play a character by RAW that he couldn't in past editions (as though this were a bad thing))?
|
|
Which is why I'm not understanding the purpose behind this argument. Why have the rules where they (by themselves) can work for almost everyone when they can work for everyone (except what I perceive as whiners because Joe Average gets to play a character by RAW that he couldn't in past editions (as though this were a bad thing))?
Hah.
On the off-chance that you are serious, I would like to ask "are you serious?" You appear to be saying something like "if we do things the way I want, it'll be better for everyone apart from the people I don't care about, those whiners, so screw them". Yes, you can certainly make anything victimless by redefining "victim", but I am unconvinced that anyone's really going to be buying that.
On the off-chance that you are serious, I would like to ask "are you serious?" You appear to be saying something like "if we do things the way I want, it'll be better for everyone apart from the people I don't care about, those whiners, so screw them". Yes, you can certainly make anything victimless by redefining "victim", but I am unconvinced that anyone's really going to be buying that.
Person who wants a lawful Monk under current rules: good to go.
Person who wants an unlawful Monk under current rules: relies on DM whim.
Person who wants a lawful Monk under proposed rules: still good to go.
Person who wants an unlawful Monk under proposed rules: good to go as well.
And from what I'm gathering from this conversation, the only problem with the proposed rules is that it allows Monks that weren't allowed previously. How does this change what the people (DMs and players alike) were going to do with their PC (and NPC) Monks? It doesn't. You and I both acknowledge that allowing Alignment: Any doesn't make things any more difficult for people to create characters that they were going to create anyway.
And what do I mean by whining? Complaining about a rule that has no negative impact would seem to qualify.
My point is that some people like the restriction, they like having monks only be lawful.
Granted. I'm still not seeing why this is a good reason to keep it. It doesn't affect their characters one hoot (they were going to be lawful anyway) and it interferes with what other people's characters could be. Any background/fluff/harkening back to previous editions can be handled by pure fluff just fine without the need for a hardfast rule.
And I just had a thought. While I'm mentioning previous editions, let's explore that. The Dimension Door spell has a caveat where you can't take anymore actions during your turn after you use that spell (and as soon as the Spells design forums open up, I'm going to put up a post to discuss that). As far as I can tell, this caveat was put in there way back in 2E because otherwise, it could combine with the Haste spell for some sick effects. Of course, the Haste spell is different from the 2E version, so the Dimension Door spell is still affected by rules and design considerations that simply don't exist anymore.
Likewise, the Monk was originally conceived in a system with Gygaxian stats. You don't just decide what it is you're going to play, you roll your stats and if they allow for you to play something you wanted to play anyway, good for you. If not, oh well. It seems to me that in the transition to 3E, the intention was to allow the player to be able to come up with a character concept before rolling stats or otherwise having anything predetermined/restricted. They just didn't take that to its full conclusion. And they still didn't in 3.5E. I'm just hoping that in a game where you're allowed to create character concept first and express it in game terms second, that they take out the alignment restrictions that can interfere with what I feel they shouldn't be touching anyway.
(Edit) I mean, as I'm seeing it, this is like some uber-Christian, anti-D&D website citing quotes from 2E as reasons why kids shouldn't be exposed to D&D today. When the conditions change, all the baseline assumptions change.
My point is that some people like the restriction, they like having monks only be lawful.
Super. You go ahead and play your Lawful Monk. But why are you trying to force me to play a Lawful Monk?
There is NO reason to keep this antiquated rule. Keeping a rule because "it's always been that way" is a TERRIBLE reason to keep a rule.
A lot of other people don't give a toss, I expect. Of those, my guess would be that some would say "keep it as it is, they can always house-rule out alignment restrictions", but that's just a guess.
When you rely on "house-ruling" something, then you're basically staking your ability to play your character on the good grace of your DM. And in the eyes of rules lawyers, your character concept is null and void. This is why this rules deficiency should be addressed in the Pathfinder rules as opposed to being left to DM Fiat.
As I said, we just don't agree on fundamentals.
Yes. If by "fundamentals," one focuses on tradition for the sake of tradition ("without sacred cows, it just ain't D&D!"), then the Lawful alignment requirement for monks is an essential component of the game, comparable with succubi being demons. If the "fundamentals" are concerned with broadening possibilities for game play as a default, then the rule is an impediment, not a shining example.
But if you want to cast what I'm saying as being pretty stupid, then that might be another sign that we disagree on fundamentals.
Woah -- hold on a second! Certainly I had no wish to even imply that. "Sacred cows" are the exact reason that many people are sticking with Pathfinder over 4e -- there's an awful lot to be said for tradition. For example, I personally really LIKE Vancian magic, even if there are better alternatives. I view the Lawful requirement for monks in the same light, because I can't think of a mechanical reason for it. Evidently you got something else out of that post, something that eludes me but evidently wasn't good, and certainly wasn't intended.
|
|
Woah -- hold on a second! Certainly I had no wish to even imply that. "Sacred cows" are the exact reason that many people are sticking with Pathfinder over 4e -- there's an awful lot to be said for tradition. For example, I personally really LIKE Vancian magic, even if there are better alternatives. I view the Lawful requirement for monks in the same light, because I can't think of a mechanical reason for it. Evidently you got something else out of that post, something that eludes me but evidently wasn't good, and certainly wasn't intended.
Fair enough, my mistake. I have a personal vendetta against 'tradition for the sake of it' (unusual as I am politically conservative, which means I argue with my fellow conservatives a lot) so I sometimes automatically see it as being pretty stupid.
I don't think that there's any mechanical reason for it unless a potential monk/barbarian multiclass would be broken (which I guess it could be, but it'd take some doing given essential monk crapness) but I think that some people do think that alignment should mean something and that the monk class is essentially a lawful one according to what D&D alignment is all about. Personally I've always found alignment somewhat odd -- not as much as it used to be (alignment tongues? They died in the 1e-->2e transition, I imagine, because no one used them anyhow, but I am not sure that's true with class alignment restrictions), though -- but it doesn't bother me at all to houserule a de-emphasis of alignments and in fact the game almost invites DM discretion in that regard.
My main bemusement and the area in which I have pretty much no common ground with some of the other people here is that I just don't see why dropping the restrictions is not acceptable as a one-line option. The refusal to accept the possibility of that seems odd to me, as if some people have problems with their DM's interpretation and willingness to house-rule and want to fix that by asking the game designers rather than working on the DM (or, in extreme cases, I guess, finding another one).
My main bemusement and the area in which I have pretty much no common ground with some of the other people here is that I just don't see why dropping the restrictions is not acceptable as a one-line option.
As to that, I have no idea -- unless it's because the option adds a line of text, whereas removing the restriction entirely removes a line of text -- although I hardly think that, in a volume the size of an unabridged dictionary, two lines are really going to make all that much difference. As for house-ruling... left unchecked, I've been known to houserule entirely new editions into being, so I certainly can't speak for the people who avoid them!
In any event, you and I have had profitable conversations in the past, and I don't wish a topic as minor as this one to interfere with future discussions; that would be a poor bargain, from my persepective.
My main bemusement and the area in which I have pretty much no common ground with some of the other people here is that I just don't see why dropping the restrictions is not acceptable as a one-line option. The refusal to accept the possibility of that seems odd to me, as if some people have problems with their DM's interpretation and willingness to house-rule and want to fix that by asking the game designers rather than working on the DM (or, in extreme cases, I guess, finding another one).
Because, inconceivable as it might seem to be to you, there are groups with players and DMs that otherwise work well together where a one-line option is just simply not enough. This one-line option falls under the same officiality as fractional base attack and base save bonuses in that it has to compete with the default rules in order to be implemented. And this hypothetical group that we're talking about (which isn't really all that hypothetical) might be isolated in such a way where finding another DM isn't an option.
If I had any confidence that such a one-line option (read: houserule, just suggested by the company rather than a player or DM), then I wouldn't be arguing against it. But I don't.
But, for me, that competition is good; competing produces what's best for that group.
So a person should have to fight the DM/system in order to play what he wants to play. He can't have his cake and eat it too. It really is serious business to just play a game.
Well, I'll just agree to disagree, because I just simply can't approve of this line of thinking.
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.
Ninja are not law abiding...
Ninja are not good......but Ninja live for discipline, to the degree of training to supernatural prowess... so Ninja are still Monks, and still lawful.
Alignments, like every other rule in the book, are a guideline, not a straightjacket. If alignments constrict characters in the games you're at then the problem is your GM. Something I do, however, if not asking for alignments, and let the characters' actions over the course of the first sessions tell me instead.
Monks well... they NEED to be lawful, no other alignment would allow for the required, complete devotion to martial arts as to develop supernatural skill.
Bards are depicted as the quintessential diletantes, picking bits of skill here and there, but never chosing to specialize, but that's something you and your GM should be able to negotiate (especially if you go for the "bard as the renaissance man" image instead of the dilettante music box).
Now...Barbarians... hmmm... now that's a tough one, few things I can think of more chaotic than their murderous rage but then... aren't many tribes bond by honor and tradition? Tribal Codes? LAWFUL to a fault to the extreme of considering everyone else savages instead?... again, that's a tough one.
I am pro any alignment paladin. I think any god should have a troupe of holy warriors.
The alternative would be a new holy warrior class, like a Crusader or Templar base class
I am pro any alignment paladin. I think any god should have a troupe of holy warriors.
The alternative would be a new holy warrior class, like a Crusader or Templar base class
No, you just use the Holy Warrior variant for Clerics in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (lose both domains, gain full BAB and d10 HD) and call it a Paladin. Maybe not a balanced swap out for a domain-Cleric, but taking this over taking Paladin? Hell yes.
Also, why did you rez this thread?!
Woah -- hold on a second! Certainly I had no wish to even imply that. "Sacred cows" are the exact reason that many people are sticking with Pathfinder over 4e -- there's an awful lot to be said for tradition. For example, I personally really LIKE Vancian magic, even if there are better alternatives. I view the Lawful requirement for monks in the same light, because I can't think of a mechanical reason for it. Evidently you got something else out of that post, something that eludes me but evidently wasn't good, and certainly wasn't intended.
Much like the current rules for Favored Classes, Alignment Restrictions are Sacred Cows that the Grognards will not allow to be touched. And that's quite unfortunate. Whether people want to admit it to themselves or not, this hobby faces a lot of stiff competition from other sources of gaming entertainment right now. Keeping rules that offer no mechanical benefits to the game that simultaneously discourage new players from playing race/class/alignment classes that they want to play (see: Elven Chaotic Monk) in the name of "tradition" hurts everyone in the long run.
I am pro any alignment paladin.
No, but...
I think any god should have a troupe of holy [edit: or unholy, as the case may be] warriors.
yes. Have you tried the alternative rules in Unearthed Arcana for them? They are OC and available in the SRD online. And the grognard says: Back away from our sanctified kine. ;)