This week's poll is located here:
www.pathfinderportal.com/poll.html
Past polls can be found at the bottom of the page.
Future polls suggestions are welcome. Email me here with your suggestions or just post in this thread.
6 days left to vote.
Voted!
Hey cool, there's an option on the poll for those of us who threw away the alignment system. Very thoughtful; thank you.
Lawful Evil. I'll play Lawful Neutral if the group I'm playing with has a problem with the "E" word.
Chaotic Neutral...
Lawful evil, as plays to my orderly and ruthless stlye of play. But often cn or cg.
If all are showing their colors, I should mention I usually play Chaotic Neutral. However, In Kirth's Monday night game I am playing a Lawful Good Dwarven Cleric of Shelyn with a Glaive. Interesting change of pace, huh?
Some kinda good.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html
Can't seem to link it...
Some kinda good.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html
Can't seem to link it...
Linkified - though not sure exactly how it applies :)
Lawful Neutral here - seems to have a lot of interesting applications in Golarion (hellknights for instance), and with some of the PF classes (monk, druid, bard now even).
To be honest, any Alignment can be fun if done well, and stupid and disruptive if done poorly.
That said, I voted LN. Its one I often have fun with, and thought would receive few votes.
Lawful Good.
It's not like the group doesn't already refer to me as the 'Paladin Guy'.
wutevah! I was a crack ho when I was eight! I do what I wawnt!
I kill people, and I don't go to school! LOL!
I really don't have a favorite.
It is a point of pride for me that I have a character of each alignment (though I tend not to make evil characters, I would have one of each if it were more viable).
The hobby is Role Playing, I like to play as many different roles as possible.
If they invented a new alignment, I would probably try it, despite thinking that's a really really silly idea.
EDIT: Except Evil Lincoln, who I imagine is NE.
I really don't have a favorite.
It is a point of pride for me that I have a character of each alignment (though I tend not to make evil characters, I would have one of each if it were more viable).
The hobby is Role Playing, I like to play as many different roles as possible.
If they invented a new alignment, I would probably try it, despite thinking that's a really really silly idea.
EDIT: Except Evil Lincoln, who I imagine is NE.
Although there are those players who almost always choose the same alignment for their characters, there are certainly those that enjoy the challenge of playing different alignments. Thanks for bringing this up. I have now added 1 more selection on the poll for those that wish to reflect this.
Chaotic neutral. So I can do what I want.
I have played with several different groups and I found that many in those groups chose the CN alignment for this very reason. I actually thought CN would have the most votes on the poll based on my gaming experiences.
People are embarrassed to admit it.
It's like.... admitting to playing D&D to norms or something.
NG all the way. I'm really a shades of gray kinda guy anyway. And neutral good is much more in line with my personality. But, I have to say, that it is absolutely awesome to do neutral evil sometimes. Those people are just terrifying as villians.
|
Morally Neutral is boring. Not cool enough to be evil, not centered enough to be good, and not self aware enough to choose. I prefer neutral good or neutral evil, but really any thing besides LN, N, or CN.
I beg to differ. My true Neutral cleric was a blast, because being a pantheist he had to juggle ALL the gods' favors.
First and only one to vote for Chaotoc Evil :)
I like True Neutral. But what makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or was I just born with a heart full of neutrality?
I wish they would have taken the bold step of gutting the Alignment System...
I have a ton of character concepts that can't even worth within the Alignment framework. (The righteous assassin is a perfect example of this)
Alignment is such a ridged system which totally ignores cultural norms and time period sensitivities.
Sending an assassin to kill the priest of a demonic cult before he can summon a greater demon as you send troops to perform a frontal assault (and thus creating the much needed distraction) is not in and of itself an evil act. Yet in the PF rules system it is….
By the standards of the Alignment system 90% of the players in the campaign are evil.
I ask you this, how many times have you given the enemy a chance to surrender? As in, in the mist of battle, lower your weapon, and ask them to give up… have any of your characters apologized for taking a life? Put the dead, even the enemy, to the grave with honor and respect?
If you really think about it... the Alignment system works more like a crutch and is truly a limitation holding back some writers from creating some amazing stories. (The false priest who does what he does for the betterment of his people, even if it means taking a life or two along the way to the Paladin on a holy crusade who has been duped by his superiors into believing that his cause was a righteous one)
Sending an assassin to kill the priest of a demonic cult before he can summon a greater demon as you send troops to perform a frontal assault (and thus creating the much needed distraction) is not in and of itself an evil act.
It depends on whether you believe the ends justify the means.
Sending an assassin to kill the priest of a demonic cult before he can summon a greater demon as you send troops to perform a frontal assault (and thus creating the much needed distraction) is not in and of itself an evil act.It depends on whether you believe the ends justify the means.
Then the question is… How many do you allow to die, and keep your good alignment?
You can tell in my home games, most Paladins don’t stay lawful good for long, it’s a double edged sword and a no win situation. Saying "Well I didn’t summon the demon, so I'm not at fault!" opens the question "did you do everything in your power to stop it?"
Ask you self this...
How is the Man knowing full well he would not escape alive, sneaks into the temple and strike down the cult leader, thus saving of hundreds. Any different than the Paladin charging into imposable odds in an attempt to buy some time for the pilgrims to escape?
They are both condemning someone to death for the life of another.
It doesn't show my favourite alignment - Chaotic Neutral With Strong Chaotic Tendencies - so I chose "no favourite alignment" (and I'm the only one. Does that mean I win a price?)
And all the alignments can be fun.
NG all the way for me...I think I'd really like the idea of a LN or LE character quite a bit, but to be 100% honest, I have trouble being anything but "good" in game...maybe thats just because Im still relatively new and that alignment resembles my real life alignment.
|
Morally Neutral is boring. Not cool enough to be evil, not centered enough to be good, and not self aware enough to choose. I prefer neutral good or neutral evil, but really any thing besides LN, N, or CN.I beg to differ. My true Neutral cleric was a blast, because being a pantheist he had to juggle ALL the gods' favors.
This is just my experience. Players pick one of those alignments so that they can do evil things without having to deal with the mechanical baggage of being evil, and because they want to not care about anything but the XP anything (monster, commoner, infant) they kill and loot. They also really break the believablity of the game, for me. I just can't see anyone actually being in the transitional state of morality for an extended period of time, and it is far from clear for me what differentiates morally neutral from evil.
They also really break the believablity of the game, for me. I just can't see anyone actually being in the transitional state of morality for an extended period of time, and it is far from clear for me what differentiates morally neutral from evil.
Funny -- in the real world, I'd categorize at least 70% of people as just plain "neutral".
...with evil tendencies.
Some kinda good.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html
Can't seem to link it...Linkified - though not sure exactly how it applies :)
Lawful Neutral here - seems to have a lot of interesting applications in Golarion (hellknights for instance), and with some of the PF classes (monk, druid, bard now even).
I meant that there are only so many good monsters for evil guys to fight. Sure, you can fight other evil things, but it's just different.
|
|
This is just my experience. Players pick one of those alignments so that they can do evil things without having to deal with the mechanical baggage of being evil, and because they want to not care about anything but the XP anything (monster, commoner, infant) they kill and loot. They also really break the believablity of the game, for me. I just can't see anyone actually being in the transitional state of morality for an extended period of time, and it is far from clear for me what differentiates morally neutral from evil.Morally Neutral is boring. Not cool enough to be evil, not centered enough to be good, and not self aware enough to choose. I prefer neutral good or neutral evil, but really any thing besides LN, N, or CN.I beg to differ. My true Neutral cleric was a blast, because being a pantheist he had to juggle ALL the gods' favors.
If you are forced to act in a variety of ways, such that some of your acts are evil, and some fall in the spectrum of good, you have not made headway either way. Because you are doing the works of all the gods, you cannot be expected to make headway in the law vs. chaos axis, nor the good vs. evil. You are neutral, not because you don't have an opinion on things, but because over your sordid career as a cleric, you were forced to do some very good, and very bad things, and so your soul is stained with both acts, creating the balance you claim to be impossible to have.
EDIT:
wish they would have taken the bold step of gutting the Alignment System...
I have a ton of character concepts that can't even worth within the Alignment framework. (The righteous assassin is a perfect example of this)
Alignment is such a ridged system which totally ignores cultural norms and time period sensitivities.
Sending an assassin to kill the priest of a demonic cult before he can summon a greater demon as you send troops to perform a frontal assault (and thus creating the much needed distraction) is not in and of itself an evil act. Yet in the PF rules system it is….
1) Page 73 of the Book of Exalted Deeds, the Slayer of Domiel.
and
2) Alignment is in additional rules.
This means that if you wish, you could theoretically abandon alignment, as the stuff in additional rules, is stuff like rolls for height and weight, amidst other "flavorful" character traits.
It doesn't show my favourite alignment - Chaotic Neutral With Strong Chaotic Tendencies - so I chose "no favourite alignment" (and I'm the only one. Does that mean I win a price?)
And all the alignments can be fun.
When I GM'd 3.5, I had my players always include a "tendency" in their alignment. I've always been sort of undecided with the alignment system though. Although I like reflecting a tendency towards chaos or law, I have never really liked spell and magic effects that use these tendencies (such as the axiomatic weapon property, or protection from chaos/law). I agree that cultural norms don't well define good and evil, but as a general game mechanic the good and evil system that has existed in D&D, has worked well throughout the years.
|
|
This is just my experience. Players pick one of those alignments so that they can do evil things without having to deal with the mechanical baggage of being evil, and because they want to not care about anything but the XP anything (monster, commoner, infant) they kill and loot. They also really break the believablity of the game, for me. I just can't see anyone actually being in the transitional state of morality for an extended period of time, and it is far from clear for me what differentiates morally neutral from evil.Morally Neutral is boring. Not cool enough to be evil, not centered enough to be good, and not self aware enough to choose. I prefer neutral good or neutral evil, but really any thing besides LN, N, or CN.I beg to differ. My true Neutral cleric was a blast, because being a pantheist he had to juggle ALL the gods' favors.That sound like Evil to me, but I could possibly see Good with a dark side. I don't see neutral though.
|
|
They also really break the believablity of the game, for me. I just can't see anyone actually being in the transitional state of morality for an extended period of time, and it is far from clear for me what differentiates morally neutral from evil.Funny -- in the real world, I'd categorize at least 70% of people as just plain "neutral".
Ok, you see an unattended infant crawling towards a fast running current.
Good: scoop up the baby and find the parent, regardles of reward.
Neutral: wait there for someone to offer you an incentive to either save from or kick the baby in the water
Evil: keep on riding, unless there is overwhelming reason not to.
70% Neutral? Really? I'd say .05%, maybe, and not for to long.
I like True Neutral. But what makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or was I just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Death makes everyone pretty neutral or so a friend of mine always tells me.
|
They also really break the believablity of the game, for me. I just can't see anyone actually being in the transitional state of morality for an extended period of time, and it is far from clear for me what differentiates morally neutral from evil.Funny -- in the real world, I'd categorize at least 70% of people as just plain "neutral".Ok, you see an unattended infant crawling towards a fast running current.
Good: scoop up the baby and find the parent, regardles of reward.
Neutral: wait there for someone to offer you an incentive to either save from or kick the baby in the water
Evil: keep on riding, unless there is overwhelming reason not to.
70% Neutral? Really? I'd say .05%, maybe, and not for to long.
I disagree, in that situation I'd put the alignment based responses as follows (though this sort of thing just highlights the problems with such a simplistic moral scale):
Good: Scoop up the child and find the parents, no matter the reward or time required.
Neutral: Scoop up the child and make a token effort to find the parents, if no success, leave the child with some authority figure. Perhaps inquire about a reward afterward.
Evil: Scoop up the child and sacrifice it to your dark lords... or just hold it ransom.