|
By RAW I guess it works. It's too bad the Ex-Monk description wasn't written the same as Ex-Barbarian, it makes sense that you could only have 1 set of powers (Monk or Barbarian) at any time.
They're supposed to be opposite ends of the scale, on the lawful/chaos axis. It's a less extreme version of being a Paladin and an Anti-Paladin at the same time. Kind of silly.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A healthy dose of self-respect would really elevate the game and take a lot of pressure off GM's forced by their players to deal with the sleazy disparity between RAW and RAI.
Just because you don't agree with or have had bad experiences with something doesn't mean you get to belittle people.
Just so you know, the recent multi-thread discussions about barbarian-monks was started by me. And you want to know how?
I wanted a character that used Snake Style. The more I pondered the idea, the more I thought they needed to be a martial arts master who watched his opponent, waited for the right opportunity, then struck decisively. In pursuit of this general concept, someone suggested barbarian levels. I balked at the flavor mismatch (moreso than the mechanical issues), but was directed to the Urban Barbarian. Once I read the "controlled rage" ability (in the mindset of wondering why this was being suggested for my monk), my mind raced with images of the Master focusing on his enemy and "getting in the zone", launching a decisive attack, then withdrawing into his normal, more passive demeanor. A classic trope.
So this all came up in an effort to find all my options for implementing a flavorful concept, without having even evaluated the potential pros and cons of the mechanics. It was all in pursuit of flavor.
Not for any other of the reasons decried by offended posters, including a lack of self-respect or an interest in sleaze, as you put it. I was just looking into ways to implement a concept.
If one of the implementations looked at doesn't work, fine. It was just one idea.
So if you would be so kind as to set aside your elitism long enough to stop making assumption-based judgments against people, I'd like to be able to explore my options without being actively ridiculed by not only some random forumites but even a Venture-Leiutenant. You do your title a disservice, Will Johnson.
|
A healthy dose of self-respect would really elevate the game and take a lot of pressure off GM's forced by their players to deal with the sleazy disparity between RAW and RAI.Just because you don't agree with or have had bad experiences with something doesn't mean you get to belittle people.
Just so you know, the recent multi-thread discussions about barbarian-monks was started by me. And you want to know how?
I wanted a character that used Snake Style. The more I pondered the idea, the more I thought they needed to be a martial arts master who watched his opponent, waited for the right opportunity, then struck decisively. In pursuit of this general concept, someone suggested barbarian levels. I balked at the flavor mismatch (moreso than the mechanical issues), but was directed to the Urban Barbarian. Once I read the "controlled rage" ability (in the mindset of wondering why this was being suggested for my monk), my mind raced with images of the Master focusing on his enemy and "getting in the zone", launching a decisive attack, then withdrawing into his normal, more passive demeanor. A classic trope.
So this all came up in an effort to find all my options for implementing a flavorful concept, without having even evaluated the potential pros and cons of the mechanics. It was all in pursuit of flavor.
I don't believe he was belittling anyone. Rather coordinators, VCs, VLs, and GM's often see the min-maxers coming out with what is essentially cheese just to get that last little bit of bonus.
There is no problem with trying to come up with a concept for flavor. Even if that concept ultimately is borderline.
However, more often than not (and knowing you Jiggy, I know you are one of the exceptions), these borderline builds are not for flavor, but for power gaming.
It isn't elitist to call a spade a spade.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't believe he was belittling anyone. Rather coordinators, VCs, VLs, and GM's often see the min-maxers coming out with what is essentially cheese just to get that last little bit of bonus.
There is no problem with trying to come up with a concept for flavor. Even if that concept ultimately is borderline.
However, more often than not (and knowing you Jiggy, I know you are one of the exceptions), these borderline builds are not for flavor, but for power gaming.
I get that there are people out there trying to gain an "edge" through dubious interpretations of the rules. I've seen it myself, and I too dislike it. The issue, though, is that this wasn't a case of that, but was treated like it was.
It's not like there was a rash of cheese-driven monk-barbarians and I just happened to be the one-out-of-many who did it for a different reason. If that were the case, it wouldn't have bothered me.
No, this was one person (me) suggesting an idea, and multiple people just assuming what my motivations were. Some people (such as yourself, Bob Jonquet, and I think others) simply addressed the question along with relevant periphery (such as the role of atonement) and left it at that. Others went with a generalized "if cheese, then bad; otherwise, fine" answer. But folks like Will Johnson just decided that the only reason to even ask such a question was for cheese, and proceeded to put me in my place.
It isn't elitist to call a spade a spade.
No, it's not. You're right. But it IS elitist to assume that you know something to be a spade in the first place without even looking at it.
|
|
I don't believe he was belittling anyone. Rather coordinators, VCs, VLs, and GM's often see the min-maxers coming out with what is essentially cheese just to get that last little bit of bonus.
There is no problem with trying to come up with a concept for flavor. Even if that concept ultimately is borderline.
However, more often than not (and knowing you Jiggy, I know you are one of the exceptions), these borderline builds are not for flavor, but for power gaming.
I get that there are people out there trying to gain an "edge" through dubious interpretations of the rules. I've seen it myself, and I too dislike it. The issue, though, is that this wasn't a case of that, but was treated like it was.
It's not like there was a rash of cheese-driven monk-barbarians and I just happened to be the one-out-of-many who did it for a different reason. If that were the case, it wouldn't have bothered me.
No, this was one person (me) suggesting an idea, and multiple people just assuming what my motivations were. Some people (such as yourself, Bob Jonquet, and I think others) simply addressed the question along with relevant periphery (such as the role of atonement) and left it at that. Others went with a generalized "if cheese, then bad; otherwise, fine" answer. But folks like Will Johnson just decided that the only reason to even ask such a question was for cheese, and proceeded to put me in my place.
It isn't elitist to call a spade a spade.No, it's not. You're right. But it IS elitist to assume that you know something to be a spade in the first place without even looking at it.
I’m confused. Because this necro’d thread came about by something that happened in 2010. You didn’t say anything in this thread until well into the revival.
How is it that you are taking this personally, when you did not start this particular thread, or that you did not specifically necro it?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I’m confused. Because this necro’d thread came about by something that happened in 2010. You didn’t say anything in this thread until well into the revival.
How is it that you are taking this personally, when you did not start this particular thread, or that you did not specifically necro it?
The necro (from Mike Schneider, third post or so) was in response to this thread.
As I referenced in my story-time above, Mike suggested the idea of including barbarian levels. It was at his description that I read Urban Barbarian for the first time.
So after having been briefly brought up in 2010, the topic seems not to have been an issue again until it got brought up in my Advice thread (hence my assertion that there's not a plague of cheesey monk-barbarians ruining PFS).
And even if the topic WAS cheese-driven, I still don't think it would be appropriate for a VL to tell the offender that their lack of self-respect and their sleazey endeavors are bringing the game down.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you notice the section that I quoted in my post, you will see exactly what I was responding to - a general lamentation regarding cheese by Dennis.
Any attack on you or a character concept you have come up with was never intended. I'm very sorry you inferred it.
Fair enough. I guess since it was in a thread on a particular topic (rather than in a more generic thread about gaming habits/styles), I took it as referring to that particular topic instead of just a general "cheese is bad" sentiment unrelated to the topic at hand. A sudden change in scope is sometimes hard to detect in a forum thread. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
I feel better now. :)
Now that you have clearly stated your concept, it is clear that the concept itself is a good one: a monk fighting the base urge to give into the seething rage that lies barely-controlled under their surface.
Heh, that's actually not the concept I was talking about. Let me clarify:
If I made this character, then the term "controlled rage" (or the title "barbarian") would only ever be spoken in response to an audit. In-game, I'd say that I was entering a zen-like state of focus, channeling my inner energy reserves into greater power. Really, the so-called "rage" would be flavored in a way similar to ki (though I wouldn't call it such, so as to avoid "re-skinning" violations).
If it were a home game, I'd ask my GM for an exception to allow me to be lawful the whole time (no shifting). If I made it happen in PFS, I'd play him as being somewhere straddling the line between lawful and neutral (nowhere NEAR chaotic), with each so-called "shift" being more of a slight leaning one direction or the other, matching whatever training he was focusing the most on at the time.
What I might actually end up doing for this character is go mono-UrbanBarb, neutral on paper, acting borderline-lawful (without even taking monk levels).
The concept is a guy who draws his power from his ability to focus.
Was that follow-able?
|
|
Finally, there's the option which has been discussed in the thread above where the character shifts back and forth in alignment and pays to atone for becoming lawful in order to become a monk temporarily, so that he can regain his rage powers and continue as a barbarian.
This arc makes far less sense to me.
Aside from the rubbishy Atonement business (a forced artificial contrivance) , that alignment switcheroo-ing is essentially the (albeit involuntary) character arc of the hooligan protagonist of A Clockwork Orange.
Basically, the guy falls off the wagon (or, in the film, the treatment doesn't work, and he regresses to savagery).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So this all came up in an effort to find all my options for implementing a flavorful concept, without having even evaluated the potential pros and cons of the mechanics. It was all in pursuit of flavor.
The way I see it, when a player chooses to do something which should significantly alter the way his character acts, He is deliberately choosing to ignore the role playing aspects of the game in order to get some trivial mechanical benefit. This whole Barbarian/ Monk/ Barbarian concept isn't doing it once, but twice in a fairly short period of time. IMO that is pretty much the definition of cheesy.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You are choosing to ignore the role playing aspects of the game in order to get some trivial mechanical benefit.
See, this right here is what I mean about not people not bothering to actually determine whether or not they're looking at cheese. It's like you haven't even read anything I've written.
I have described, in multi-paragraph detail, the roleplaying aspects of this concept. I have also pointed out that I hadn't even bothered to determine what (if any) mechanical benefits there would be. For all I know, the proposed implementation of the concept could be mechanically disadvantageous.
You see, the issue is not with your definition of cheesey. That's my definition of cheesey too. The issue is that you think those criteria are being met, despite no evidence to support it, and in fact me explaining the exact opposite to be true. I.e., I propose a roleplay concept that may cost me mechanically, and you identify it as ignoring roleplay in favor of mechanical benefit.
You have chosen to believe the opposite of what is staring you in the face.
It's not so much that it seems impossible to me, as that there isn't really as much scope for roleplaying alignment changes within PFS... That is the crux here, that GMs have to judge that the alignment truly has shifted. I don't really see that happening if you play with many different GMs, ...POSSIBLY if you have a consistent GM, but even then the nature of PFS missions removes alot of continuity in long terms aims that would highlight any possibility alignment shifts. Further, you are playing with fire by doing this> acting Lawful until the point you actually are Lawful (and not Chaotic) means 'at some point' you will lose access to Rage BEFORE YOU GAIN THE MONK LEVEL in all likelihood. Of course, for the Lawful/Monk levels you aren't getting any benefit from Rage, and you have to keep acting Chaotic until the point when the Alignment actually shifts, which may mean you gain more Character Levels before being able to shift back to Chaotic, disturbing some 'optimized class progression sequence'. Of course, softball GMS can handwaive the alignment shifts, but I would never do so and would frown on sort of thing in any game I play as a PC.
The Atonement for Barb Class Abilities is the wierdedst part, house-ruling I would just say it isn't necessary if you have the correct Alignment again, but if you look at the specifics of Atonement as 'reconnecting somebody with aspects of their self which they have separated from due to shifting alignment' it isnt' really all that problematic even.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You are choosing to ignore the role playing aspects of the game in order to get some trivial mechanical benefit.See, this right here is what I mean about not people not bothering to actually determine whether or not they're looking at cheese. It's like you haven't even read anything I've written.
I have described, in multi-paragraph detail, the roleplaying aspects of this concept. I have also pointed out that I hadn't even bothered to determine what (if any) mechanical benefits there would be. For all I know, the proposed implementation of the concept could be mechanically disadvantageous.
You see, the issue is not with your definition of cheesey. That's my definition of cheesey too. The issue is that you think those criteria are being met, despite no evidence to support it, and in fact me explaining the exact opposite to be true. I.e., I propose a roleplay concept that may cost me mechanically, and you identify it as ignoring roleplay in favor of mechanical benefit.
You have chosen to believe the opposite of what is staring you in the face.
So you aren't changing your character's alignment twice to get a mechanical benefit?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both behaviors should however be accompanied by some sense of shame and one should not be surprised when onlookers show disgust.
Playing a game in a way others do not approve of is nothing to be ashamed of. You can express your dislike of someone's playstyle, but you cannot force them to change it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Both behaviors should however be accompanied by some sense of shame and one should not be surprised when onlookers show disgust.Playing a game in a way others do not approve of is nothing to be ashamed of. You can express your dislike of someone's playstyle, but you cannot force them to change it.
More or less this.
The way I see it, when a player chooses to do something which should significantly alter the way his character acts, He is deliberately choosing to ignore the role playing aspects of the game in order to get some trivial mechanical benefit. This whole Barbarian/ Monk/ Barbarian concept isn't doing it once, but twice in a fairly short period of time. IMO that is pretty much the definition of cheesy.
Dennis I see what your saying but unless you play with the same GM every time said character sits down then its hard for a GM to decide if you've actually made a change of if your doing it "just this session" to get him to sign off on the new alignment.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So you aren't changing your character's alignment twice to get a mechanical benefit?
No, I'm not. To repeat myself once again: I'm talking about changing a character's alignment twice to achieve a concept despite probably taking some mechanical disadvantages in the process.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that people are getting honestly upset in this thread, but part of me wants to smile a little, because it sounds like people are having the following conversation.
First Person Hey, wasn't there a pear on that table yesterday?
Second Person Maybe, but there's a banana there now.
First Person Yes, I can see that, but I'm pretty sure there was a pear there yesterday.
Second Person Even so, banana there, today. It's pretty obvious to anybody who cares to look.
First Person Yes, and I'm not disputing that! I heard you. But yesterday, it was a pear.
Second Person I'll take your word for it. But that's not what's there now. It's - a - banana!
First PersonYesterday it was a razza-frazzin' pear!
Second Person Well, it's not a pear any more. I'm trying to tell you, it's a banana!!
(They glare at one another, each daring his opponent to refute him.)
Third Person (enters) Hey, wasn't there a pear on that table yesterday?
First Person HA!
Second Person Oh, for the love of God...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So you aren't changing your character's alignment twice to get a mechanical benefit?No, I'm not. To repeat myself once again: I'm talking about changing a character's alignment twice to achieve a concept despite probably taking some mechanical disadvantages in the process.
I don't see any significant difference. There is this mechanical thing you want, you are willing to goof around with your character's way to make it happen because the rules are vague about alignment.
That you have a pat little 'concept' to wrap it around is splitting hairs.
Today disciplined monk, Tomorrow rabel rousing anarchist, Sunday disciplined monk again. Instant reversal so you can have your concept.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dennis I see what your saying but unless you play with the same GM every time said character sits down then its hard for a GM to decide if you've actually made a change of if your doing it "just this session" to get him to sign off on the new alignment.
This is more or less what Bob suggests and I agree. Regardless, unless you are one of my regular players I'm not going to sign off on it. You can go back to your regular GM who knows what and why you are doing it and work with him.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There is this mechanical thing you want, you are willing to goof around with your character's way to make it happen
I have already stated flat-out that I'm not after any particular mechanic. If you're just going to sit there and call me a liar, then there's not much point in continuing any sort of dialogue with you on the topic.
If it makes you feel any better, I've long since accepted that the build in question is a bad idea and have started on a less controversial implementation of the character I'm trying to portray.
But I'm done trying to get you to understand that I was never trying to cheese it up in the first place. You've chosen what you want to believe, in spite of being told point-blank that the opposite is true. Hopefully any future discussions between us can be a bit more rational.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If it makes you feel any better, I've long since accepted that the build in question is a bad idea and have started on a less controversial implementation of the character I'm trying to portray.
It's not that I think you are lying or whatever, I just don't see alignment as something you can turn on and off like a light and from level to level.
|
There is this mechanical thing you want, you are willing to goof around with your character's way to make it happenI have already stated flat-out that I'm not after any particular mechanic. If you're just going to sit there and call me a liar, then there's not much point in continuing any sort of dialogue with you on the topic.
If it makes you feel any better, I've long since accepted that the build in question is a bad idea and have started on a less controversial implementation of the character I'm trying to portray.
But I'm done trying to get you to understand that I was never trying to cheese it up in the first place. You've chosen what you want to believe, in spite of being told point-blank that the opposite is true. Hopefully any future discussions between us can be a bit more rational.
Try going with whatever flavor of monk you want, and then going barbarian. It requires one shift, and appears to work fine. Mechanically, it adds up nicely as well, although flavor wise it suffers from the mandatory monk->barbarian flow.
|
|
Try going with whatever flavor of monk you want, and then going barbarian. It requires one shift, and appears to work fine. Mechanically, it adds up nicely as well, although flavor wise it suffers from the mandatory monk->barbarian flow.
Honestly, I think this is the crux of the discomfort many people have with this issue.
Switching alignment once is understandable from a role-playing perspective, and doesn't even really bother me personally if it's done for mostly mechanical reasons.
Switching back and forth, however, has an odour of gaming the system (justified or not). And I know it would raise flags for me with a player I did not know, which is often the case in PFS.
|
|
.
So you aren't changing your character's alignment twice to get a mechanical benefit?No, I'm not. To repeat myself once again: I'm talking about changing a character's alignment twice to achieve a concept despite probably taking some mechanical disadvantages in the process.
For the sake of Devil's Advocacy, stipulate to the accusation, then ask:
"So what if I'm getting a 'mechanical benefit'? My fighter weight-trained for an 18 STR and bought a two-handed weapon -- is that bad too?"|
|
For the sake of Devil's Advocacy, stipulate to the accusation, then ask:
"So what if I'm getting a 'mechanical benefit'? My fighter weight-trained for an 18 STR and bought a two-handed weapon -- is that bad too?"
The difference is that the Strength score is a trackable stat which is changed by a limited number of hard-coded mechanics. And there is a cost associated (even if it is just foregoing build points elsewhere).
Alignment is usually regulated by player/GM discussion, and developed over time. Not something that works well in a short duration, multiple GM situation. And the only usual "costs", role-playing and class limitations, are being bypassed (or not trackable) here.
The 2 situations do not really correspond.
|
|
The difference is that the Strength score is a trackable stat which is changed by a limited number of hard-coded mechanics. And there is a cost associated (even if it is just foregoing build points elsewhere).
If I take a level of monk and then a level of barbarian, I have fewer levels of either monk or barbarian or other classes than I could have otherwise -- just the same as deciding which stats to bump and dump. The trade-off factor applies to either case; nobody's getting anything too groovy for free.
|
|
There is this mechanical thing you want, you are willing to goof around with your character's way to make it happenI have already stated flat-out that I'm not after any particular mechanic. If you're just going to sit there and call me a liar, then there's not much point in continuing any sort of dialogue with you on the topic.
If it makes you feel any better, I've long since accepted that the build in question is a bad idea and have started on a less controversial implementation of the character I'm trying to portray.
But I'm done trying to get you to understand that I was never trying to cheese it up in the first place. You've chosen what you want to believe, in spite of being told point-blank that the opposite is true. Hopefully any future discussions between us can be a bit more rational.
Again I'm confused. I read the other thread, and you were actually arguing against taking Barbarian levels with Mike Schneider, because you didn't feel it fit your character.
So I don't know why you are taking the defensive here, because the way I see it, your other thread you linked to, and this thread have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
You weren't willing to go down the Barbarian road, and now you are arguing that everyone is calling you cheesy for that build idea?
Boggles my mind.
|
|
"So what if I'm getting a 'mechanical benefit'? My fighter weight-trained for an 18 STR and bought a two-handed weapon -- is that bad too?"
Red herrings do not add to this discussion, and in fact distract from the issue. This counter-point is largely irrelevant because it's comparing apples to oranges. The fact they have to deal with character builds is about the only thing they share in common.
I have a problem with this build because the cart (potential character build) is leading the horse (role playing). What is the explanation for switching alignment besides it follows a plan for the character you want to build? What drives the PC to switch alignment in-game? He can't just wake up one day and say "you know, I feel like being more chaotic today even though I'm lawful." That's a two-step shift into being a polar opposite, which is quite serious and fundamentally changes the nature of the PC. It's on the same line as a good character suddenly deciding they want to be evil so they could take levels in antipaladin or assassin.
Character shifts in alignment that I've come across have largely been due to situations happening at a table (guilt over causing a PC death because of inaction / dumb actions that Rube Goldberg'd to terribleness or adventuring with a certain party that opens the eyes of the PC that there is a different way). Each time it has been organic and not been part of some character design.
While there is no rule stating this can't happen, I would hope that most folks would meet this character concept with resistance. As it has been stated, just because it can doesn't mean it should.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Again I'm confused. I read the other thread, and you were actually arguing against taking Barbarian levels with Mike Schneider, because you didn't feel it fit your character.
So I don't know why you are taking the defensive here, because the way I see it, your other thread you linked to, and this thread have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
You weren't willing to go down the Barbarian road, and now you are arguing that everyone is calling you cheesy for that build idea?
Boggles my mind.
I did originally balk at Mike's suggestion of barbarian levels. After that, I read the Urban Barbarian and got my next idea. But it was the dialogue between me and Mike that (near as I can tell) led to Mike necro-ing this thread. (I think there was also a Rules Questions thread in there somewhere, but I can't find it. I could be mistaken.)
But anyway, that connection's a moot point now; I'm cool with Will Johnson (see my last reply to him). I misunderstood the aim of his comments, he clarified, s'all good now.
So at that point, everything was peachy.
Then (once I stated that the hypothetical build was my idea) Dennis Baker came in and told me that I was just trying to gain a mechanical edge. I told him that no, I wasn't. He insisted that yes, I was. So I'm done with him, as all I could do is repeat myself, which is obviously not going to be helpful in any way.
And I *think* that sums up my involvement in this thread.
And that's where I'm going to leave it (unless you have more questions), since at this point all that's left is the debating of a point that only Mike is actually interested in discussing; anything relevant to me has already been stated (and re-stated) and either believed or not.
Now I'm off to check on my latest build advice thread. :D
|
|
I have a problem with this build because the cart (potential character build) is leading the horse (role playing). What is the explanation for switching alignment besides it follows a plan for the character you want to build? What drives the PC to switch alignment in-game? He can't just wake up one day and say "you know, I feel like being more chaotic today even though I'm lawful." That's a two-step shift into being a polar opposite, which is quite serious and fundamentally changes the nature of the PC. It's on the same line as a good character suddenly deciding they want to be evil so they could take levels in antipaladin or assassin.
While there is no rule stating this can't happen, I would hope that most folks would meet this character concept with resistance. As it has been stated, just because it can doesn't mean it should.
I'm sorry, does the PFS guide state that roleplay goes before combat? Some people like a combat themed game, and that attitude drives them away. Further, for the love of the pantheon, did you NOT READ HIS POST? He has stated probably 10 times now that he would be a *neutral* barbarian, who rides the edge between lawful and neutral.
|
|
Again I'm confused. I read the other thread, and you were actually arguing against taking Barbarian levels with Mike Schneider, because you didn't feel it fit your character.
So I don't know why you are taking the defensive here, because the way I see it, your other thread you linked to, and this thread have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
You weren't willing to go down the Barbarian road, and now you are arguing that everyone is calling you cheesy for that build idea?
Boggles my mind.
I did originally balk at Mike's suggestion of barbarian levels. After that, I read the Urban Barbarian and got my next idea. But it was the dialogue between me and Mike that (near as I can tell) led to Mike necro-ing this thread. (I think there was also a Rules Questions thread in there somewhere, but I can't find it. I could be mistaken.)
But anyway, that connection's a moot point now; I'm cool with Will Johnson (see my last reply to him). I misunderstood the aim of his comments, he clarified, s'all good now.
So at that point, everything was peachy.
Then (once I stated that the hypothetical build was my idea) Dennis Baker came in and told me that I was just trying to gain a mechanical edge. I told him that no, I wasn't. He insisted that yes, I was. So I'm done with him, as all I could do is repeat myself, which is obviously not going to be helpful in any way.
And I *think* that sums up my involvement in this thread.
And that's where I'm going to leave it (unless you have more questions), since at this point all that's left is the debating of a point that only Mike is actually interested in discussing; anything relevant to me has already been stated (and re-stated) and either believed or not.
Now I'm off to check on my latest build advice thread. :D
I can appreciate that. But I think you are being WAY hypersensitive here. Nobody is attacking you personally for maybe even entertaining an idea you had publicly said no way to, and argued against. You are taking something personally for having a brain-storming thought process, which certainly nobody will condemn you for.
Heck, I entertain build ideas that probably are cheesy too. As soon as I realize they are, I throw out or do a redesign. But I do entertain them sometimes. Nature of the beast I suppose.
Nowhere in the build advice thread did you actually accept Mike's idea, nor did you espouse any belief that doing the double alignment swap thingy was a good idea. You actually stated you thought going Barbarian just felt wrong. Why that was, I'm not sure, so I won't guess.
But nowhere did anyone think you were going to create a Barbarian/Monk/Barbarian type guy and try to use Atonement to get your Rage back.
If you were, then I don't care if it is flavorful backstory, or what your actual intent, roleplay wise was. I'd have a problem with it, and in a home game I would not allow it. In PFS, I have the right as a GM to disallow your use of Rage, even if another GM signed off on the Atonement. And I would.
Because despite your intent just to create a cool character, it ended up using cheese to get to the end result. Despite the fact that I know you were not attempting to game the system by even entertaining the idea, the end result is a game of the system, should that build ever be realized.
|
IMO, the designers placed the Lawful Monk at odds with the Chaotic Barbarian because, in addition to the obvious thematic issues, they felt that, in combination, the power curve would be off. Of course, I have no proof of it, but it "feels" that way. YMMV
Also, IMHO, making multiple, short-term, alignment changes should be extremely rare and usually be accompanied by involuntary ingredients. We have learned by years of opto-forums and "hey, what do ya think about this" type threads that there is a measurable community of players who seem to search the rules for unclear language and then see how far they can push the limits of what the designers failed to codify. To many, this is the essence of "cheese."
Anytime we discuss a muddled rule, there is going to be polarization as everyone thinks their interpretation is the "right" one and anything else would reduce their level of enjoyment of the game and therefore must be "wrong."
I like Jiggly's character concept and would love to explore it in a controlled environment, aka home game. The issue to me is the exploitability of the build by players who play the game for reasons or in ways that do not mesh well with that of the general society. I don't want to tell them they are playing "wrong" because if you get enjoyment from your style of play, then you are doing it the "right" way for you. It just might be that you exist at the extremes of the rules and most will not enjoy the experience of playing with you or more specifically your character.
While every player should be allowed the freedom to explore all character concepts, we have to remember the forum in which we play. Some builds will not be appropriate for the society where venue, player ages, rule restrictions, etc. can pose problems.
Can a scantily clad, nymphomaniac, cleric of Calistra who uses sex as a diplomacy tool, and every discussion is an innuendo-ladened porn script be fun to play? Absolutely. Is it appropriate for organized play? Probably not.
As I said, I hate the terms "right" and "wrong" but they seem to be the only words I can think of to describe how someone views these types of issues.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Stuff
Again, I had simply misunderstood the first person I reacted to. As for the second, I still interpret his statements differently than you seem to, but that's okay.
In retrospect, even though I stand by the material content of my posts in this thread, I may well have reacted with an unwarranted level of intensity. If so, I apologize - to everyone. Some things get me more riled up than other things. (And being on the internet probably doesn't help.)
In any case, time to move on. :)
|
|
He has stated probably 10 times now that he would be a *neutral* barbarian, who rides the edge between lawful and neutral.
True, but it still creates the alignment contradictions between a barbarian (non-Lawful) and monk (Lawful). This is the crux of the issue that so many are having a problem with.
He has also admitted to abandoning the concept, so I think this needs to be discussed from the general rather than directed at Jiggly for his specific character build.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I feel like causing trouble. Fel free to address this, or to just shrug and say "That's Chris, causin' trouble again."
According to the Pathfinder rulebook, in a passage well-worn from the "what happens when your PC turns evil" discussions from a few months ago, a character's alignment is a decision the GM makes, not the player.
Your barbarian can "act lawful" but until you pay for an atonement, it's the GM's call whether the PC has shifted. "A neutral character often does lawful things one day and wild things the next. You're not lawful until you embrace law and rigor as a lifelong quest."
Likewise, it's the GM's call whether your ex-barbarian monk has now betrayed her new alignment dictates and fallen back to neutral. "You're committing random acts in order to 'be chaotic' or at least neutral. But that's exactly how a lawful character would attempt that. You're still in that legalistic mindset."
|
|
I feel like causing trouble. Fel free to address this, or to just shrug and say "That's Chris, causin' trouble again."
According to the Pathfinder rulebook, in a passage well-worn from the "what happens when your PC turns evil" discussions from a few months ago, a character's alignment is a decision the GM makes, not the player.
Your barbarian can "act lawful" but until you pay for an atonement, it's the GM's call whether the PC has shifted. "A neutral character often does lawful things one day and wild things the next. You're not lawful until you embrace law and rigor as a lifelong quest."
Likewise, it's the GM's call whether your ex-barbarian monk has now betrayed her new alignment dictates and fallen back to neutral. "You're committing random acts in order to 'be chaotic' or at least neutral. But that's exactly how a lawful character would attempt that. You're still in that legalistic mindset."
I sincerely hope that is not how you actually play. Because if so, I would leave your table mid play. The quote you provide indicates you are looking to crush players who don't play the game exactly the way you want to, and I am personally ashamed that *any* PFS GM would chose to run their table.