Seriously. I've never seen anything good come about with having that.
My biggest problem is that Good vs Evil is really a subjective matter. It doesn't matter if people say mechanically it isn't. It's up to the DM to decide what's evil and what isn't. What qualifies as evil and so on and so forth. I can't think of one thing that's it's actually needed for other than flavor. In the end all I've seen it do is cause a bunch of headaches.
Do you need alignment restriction? I believe not. What I do believe in though is a code for certain classes. I remember this book called Paladin, it basically had a list of laws (3 minor, 2 major, and 1 unbreakable laws) Having the different priorities of laws helped when there were decisions that cause conflict. Anyway, I believe that the laws would be due for classes such as Paladins, Monks, Druids, and Clerics. They already have their codes, so that should work fine.
Then you have smite, detect alignment, magic circle, etc. The detect alignment can even break games if not properly planned for. Smite for the Paladin is overpowered when trying to run a pathfinder AP because everybody is evil. It just seems silly to use on most humans even if they are evil.
How I would deal with this in an alignment game? Instead of detecting 'good' or 'evil' I would have a Paladin detect negative energy. Negative energy being given off by evil clerics, undead, demons, and devils. Whilst paladins, good clerics, and celestials would give off an abundance of positive energy.
Really other than those two things which can be worked around fairly easily I might add, what makes keeping alignment around as a 'vital stat' worth all the headaches that it causes?
Hell. No.
Nope. Alignment is fine to have in the game. I'm also almost 100% sure that something would fill the void of alignment discussions were it no longer a part of the game.
Rolling Perception.
AHA! This thread is a trap.
Rolling to disarm...
Success!
In all seriousness, people have made a pretty great case for removing the whole Good/Evil thing from real life interactions on the same basis of subjectivity. Good luck on that one.
. I won't argue it is less of an RPG if you remove it, but the basic idea of choosing a personality and sticking with it or watching it change is a good one. Even if the worldview is simplistic, it allows for a lot of nuance if you're willing to swallow its basic conceits.
Lots of other games have more nuanced systems, but this is the original, and as such can be enjoyed for it's quaint authenticity, as well as the inherent potential for commentary. I love the heck out of planescape, and my Paladin player seems to have a good idea of how to roleplay the moral quandaries that are only made possible by the black & white morality of the system. It's been fun.
If you have a serious beef with alignment, don't use it. Much of the system still works without it, and the parts that break are the parts you probably don't like if you have a problem with alignment.
Damn you, Evil Lincoln!
I'm just looking to see if having alignment provides anything other than
a) class conduct
b) alignment based magic
I don't want to start a flame war, but I really want to know if it actually provides anything more than those two things and fluff.
I'm just looking to see if having alignment provides anything other than
a) class conduct
b) alignment based magicI don't want to start a flame war, but I really want to know if it actually provides anything more than those two things and fluff.
This is the rule that tells the player what role to play.
It is only a restriction for some classes. For the rest, it is a tool to help you get into character. It helps to define how your character differs from yourself, morally, by providing a (perhaps overly) simplistic model that player and Gm can (sometimes) agree upon.
Yes, there are more nuanced systems. White Wolf used to have great ones with "Nature" and "Demeanor" IIRC (but that was a decade ago for me). It's the "who am I today?" rule. That's a pretty cool idea.
With Pathfinder, you are playing a classic RPG, more than a little concerned with tradition and legacy. For that kind of game, no, it is not a mistake to go with the older, if simplistic system.
It is a great rule and great for roleplaying if you give yourself over to it. That runs contrary to what critics of the rule often suggest.
I often waive the "restrictive" aspects of alignment for a given class. It's my prerogative as a GM. I can very easily see that a barbarian might be lawful for any number of reasons... but the basic system of classifying personalities in terms simple enough to serve role-playing needs is something I would never discard.
Seriously. I've never seen anything good come about with having that.
<snip>
Really other than those two things which can be worked around fairly easily I might add, what makes keeping alignment around as a 'vital stat' worth all the headaches that it causes?
To be honest, in real life I have never experienced any arguments or ‘headaches’ regarding alignment. I didn’t even know people disagreed so vehemently about it until I started reading the arguments on line.
Perhaps it’s just that I like the tradition, but I like the idea of ethical magic and the other associated features of alignment.
In the end though, I guess it really just depends on the group you are with
I think alignments are integral to the roles in the game. With those 9 alignment options, it gives a GM a great starting point for NPC cultures and philosophies. Looseness of alignment roles has always been my #1 biggest complaint about the Eberron campaign setting.
Dwarves are loyal to their clan, leaders, and families before thinking about themselves. Why? Because they're naturally Lawful Good.
Orcs are tribal and ruled by the strongest orc around. Why? Because they're naturally Chaotic Evil.
Elves are flighty, individualistic, and compassionate. Why? Because they're naturally Chaotic Good.
Humans have no particular cultural philosophy, so individual humans are could be anything or everything.
The alignment philosophies are so all-inclusive and easily role-played that I cannot see any real reason to drop them and I see them as an excellent tool to fascilitate role-play.
In my campaigns, if you're playing a character with an alignment that runs counter to the racial alignment stereotype, you'd better have a darned good reason. After all, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs, etc are not humans...they have much stronger cultural ties. What's the point of playing a dwarf if you're not acting like a dwarf, after all?
I hate saying anyone is roleplaying "wrong," but if you say you're lawful good, I want to see you playing a disciplined character that cares about others. Otherwise, you're playing your role "wrong." I'm happy to be leniant on specifics, but if you're playing a character that has no self control and cares more about him/herself than others, you really have no right calling yourself a cleric of a lawful good diety, or even just saying a lawful good fighter. If you know you're acting like that, it's just as easy to refer to yourself as chaotic neutral or something similar...
|
In contrast to many people it seems, neither I nor any of my RP groups have had trouble with alignments, and we've run the gauntlet from mixed alignment groups to parties that are exemplars of good and evil.
I believe alignment is integral to the game, and the half-baked crop of usual critiscisms of it make me sigh in frustration whenever I see a new alignment thread pop up.
While I can see the fluff for it, having the mechanics of the game depend on it more than it would depend on any visual of the character (such as eye and hair color). Stereotypes can just as easily be defined in the description of a race.
I guess it's easy when your players just stick to the extremes, but when you're dealing with neutral and gray areas it just gets weird and painful as an actual stat. (Such as a certain 'good' dragon that will destroy an entire town because there's a powerful evil wizard living there)
While I can see the fluff for it, having the mechanics of the game depend on it more than it would depend on any visual of the character (such as eye and hair color). Stereotypes can just as easily be defined in the description of a race.
I guess it's easy when your players just stick to the extremes, but when you're dealing with neutral and gray areas it just gets weird and painful as an actual stat. (Such as a certain 'good' dragon that will destroy an entire town because there's a powerful evil wizard living there)
I'm not sure I understand.
I have had multitudinous interactions with alignment that dealt with moral grey area, and they can be a real joy. The entire Planescape setting, a favorite of mine, was built on such interactions.
The example of the dragon that is given doesn't really make sense to me. What is the context? Did this happen to you in a game?
Um, no.
No, it wasn't.
You are an eloquent wordsmith sir, BRAVO!
That said, you have perfectly summed up my thoughts on the matter.
Also eloquent TOZ.
No.
For me, and those I play with, Alignment is an integral part of the game.
No it was not.
*walks into thread*
*casts flame shield*
Why does this thread exist?
<long winded post about why this thread is stupid and I shouldn't have to read such garbage>
*leaves thread*
|
|
I don't have a problem so much with alignments on an individual basis, but when alignments are applied to *whole countries* it bugs me. It stretches realism/verisimilitude for me to imagine an entire nation that is OK with itself being evil.
I also find that fantasy books with this trope (The great Eeeeevill from the North/East/West has Awakened! Oh noes! ) aren't nearly as good as the ones with a grittier, greyer take on morality. Tolkien, of course, excepted.
Word. In my games nations themselves have no Good/neutral/Evil axis. They are only Lawful/neutral/chaotic. Who is running them or living in them on the other hand can be anywhere on the board.
I think Erik and TOZ have thoroughly and rationally covered every aspect of this debate, fairly and decisively closing the book on years of deliberation. Thank you gentlemen, I look forward to never having this conversation again due to your noble efforts. Huzzah.
Well, a lawful or chaotic country is fairly objective. Are their laws? Will you go to jail or die for breaking them?
China = Lawful.
Somalia = Chaotic.
I doubt anyone can argue that (but I should have more faith in the forums).
Good vs. evil, on the other hand... as aforementioned, is much more subjective. I would offer that your daily risk of death or injury s a good indication of the Good-Evil axis of alignment for nations, if there must be such a thing.
In a lawful evil state, you will be prosecuted and probably die or rot in jail. In a lawful good state, only if you deserve it. In a chaotic good state, there's no need for any of that. In a chaotic evil state... good luck (they exist!)
Okay let me put you in the shoes of a paladin standing in a random city. She detects evil. A random soldier passes by and he detects as evil. Now, what causes this man to radiate evil? Is it because he likes to inflict pain on others? So it turns out he is a soldier for the king and the pain he inflicts is on the orcs that constantly try to raid the town. Some DMs would never have him detect as evil because he obviously wants to protect the town and may even have him show up as good. How would an angel who is destroying vile creatures known as humans who constantly pollute and destroy the land as?
From an in world view, how does the paladin herself figure out how good and evil is determined? Is it her beliefs, the beliefs of the paladin's god or goddess, or some other universal force?
What this leads up to is the subjectiveness of good vs evil, and how it's subjective to the DM. The DM is who makes Good/Evil objective upon their own beliefs and how it's handled is determined by them. It honestly wouldn't matter if there weren't actual class abilities and magic tied to this subjective description.
I don't believe players need alignment to roleplay, I think they should roleplay accordingly to their respective careers, race, and background. Alignment is just something slapped on to describe a character like hair color and eye color. There are no core rules that take away your powers if your eyes stop being blue, or if you decide to stop wearing shoes.
Honestly, the only response I've gotten is that it's good for fluff and that it doesn't hurt to keep in (the latter statement being quite subjective to the games they've played in). I'm not saying everything needs to be morally ambiguous, but other than fluff(rp and background), class abilities, and alignment based magic, if it's so integral how?
|
I think Erik and TOZ have thoroughly and rationally covered every aspect of this debate, fairly and decisively closing the book on years of deliberation. Thank you gentlemen, I look forward to never having this conversation again due to your noble efforts. Huzzah.
*bangs fist on armor* I live to serve.
A lot of people are discounting this whole conversation out of hand (including me, at first). *shrug* I guess it is a trap thread. But still I'll give "reasoned response" a shot.
Honestly, the only response I've gotten is that it's good for fluff and that it doesn't hurt to keep in (the latter statement being quite subjective to the games they've played in). I'm not saying everything needs to be morally ambiguous, but other than fluff(rp and background), class abilities, and alignment based magic, if it's so integral how?
It's not integral. You'll notice that half of the responses are a short "no" coming from the people who make up Pathfinder's base: traditionalists who were satisfied with the game as it was.
The big misconception about Pathfinder is that it was meant to be some radical improvement on the 3.5 system. A lot of people take up Pathfinder hoping it was going to address their perceived problems, like class balance, or alignment, or this or that. In the end, Pathfinder is just a game for people who wanted to keep playing 3.5 but have it be a living, supported system.
So, alignment remains because the audience was given a chance to change it (during the playtest) and said "we like it fine, thanks". These are the same people who buy Paizo's most profitable products (APs, I think) every month, and there's no reason to ignore them. If they like it, it stays.
I actually wouldn't say alignment is needed, but that it is needed to maintain the same feel that the setting/adventures have had in 3.5 and before. You can make a good fantasy RPG without alignment, but it would be harder to keep all of the traditional elements of the game working the same way without it.
I on the other had would like to see alignments removed from the rules side of the game and keep them only as discretion.
This is a really easy house rule*. Were alignment to be removed from the rules, putting traditional alignment back into the game would be a very difficult house rule.
*as mentioned above, I waive alignment requirements all the time.
So, alignment remains integral because the audience was given a chance to change it (during the playtest) and said "we like it fine, thanks". These are the same people who buy Paizo's most profitable products (APs, I think) every month, and there's no reason to ignore them. If they like it, it stays.
So that's the reason. I see... Well I guess that makes sense. Thanks Lincoln.
I guess since I was trying to see it for mechanics I didn't see it from the market perspective. It still leaves me feeling kinda meh, but I guess I'll live with it. \o/
Alright, now that I somehow got the answer I was looking for, I just need to figure out how to politely sage this thread...
So that's the reason. I see... Well I guess that makes sense. Thanks Lincoln.
No, thank YOU for proving that not every concept discussion thread has to be another sad statistic.
Well, there's still time. :)
Seriously. I've never seen anything good come about with having that.
My biggest problem is that Good vs Evil is really a subjective matter. It doesn't matter if people say mechanically it isn't. It's up to the DM to decide what's evil and what isn't. What qualifies as evil and so on and so forth. I can't think of one thing that's it's actually needed for other than flavor. In the end all I've seen it do is cause a bunch of headaches.
Do you need alignment restriction? I believe not. What I do believe in though is a code for certain classes. I remember this book called Paladin, it basically had a list of laws (3 minor, 2 major, and 1 unbreakable laws) Having the different priorities of laws helped when there were decisions that cause conflict. Anyway, I believe that the laws would be due for classes such as Paladins, Monks, Druids, and Clerics. They already have their codes, so that should work fine.
Then you have smite, detect alignment, magic circle, etc. The detect alignment can even break games if not properly planned for. Smite for the Paladin is overpowered when trying to run a pathfinder AP because everybody is evil. It just seems silly to use on most humans even if they are evil.
How I would deal with this in an alignment game? Instead of detecting 'good' or 'evil' I would have a Paladin detect negative energy. Negative energy being given off by evil clerics, undead, demons, and devils. Whilst paladins, good clerics, and celestials would give off an abundance of positive energy.Really other than those two things which can be worked around fairly easily I might add, what makes keeping alignment around as a 'vital stat' worth all the headaches that it causes?
I don't mind having it around as a guideline since it encourages good aligned characters, but due to how vague it is I would like for it to have less of a mechanical impact.
Outsiders can still have the evil/good subtype, but players alignments should be removed for reasons of qualifying for a class. Instead a code of behavior for each class would fit better.The code might allow tiny infractions to be ignored X amount of time, while major infractions might only be allowed once or twice. Very specific examples should be given though.
I have not added these to my game yet, but I am thinking about it.
I think Erik and TOZ have thoroughly and rationally covered every aspect of this debate, fairly and decisively closing the book on years of deliberation. Thank you gentlemen, I look forward to never having this conversation again due to your noble efforts. Huzzah.*bangs fist on armor* I live to serve.
::Bangs armor on TOZ's head:: Likewise.
::Looks at dented armor::
Damn, they said this stuff was adamantine! I demand a refund!
Alignment is the fundamental concrete upon which the world is based.
From a Player standpoint, you are of course dependent upon the DM to interpret things.
From a character standpoint, your PC's live in a world where Good is Absolute, Evil is tangible and real, and what you do in life directly and certain as gravity affects where your soul goes.
Our blase' attitude about alignment doesn't exist in Glorian. In D&D, alignment is a titanically powerful, living, breathing force. It should color every character's actions, because they know, deep down, that everything they do in life affects their afterlife. This isn't faith, this is FACT.
Now, think about how different that mental attitude is from our world, where we can only have faith god exists, and where we try to argue subjective, moral and ethical viewpoints of the alignments. IN glorian, you don't argue your actions are 'good'...you measure them against alignment, your viewpoint isn't what is important, and has no effect on the cosmic standard. Philosophy would be very different there.
And a dragon wiping out a good town because an evil wizard there is killing innocents without care. At best it's lawful neutral, regardless of justifications. Might does not make it right.
===Aelryinth
It's an anachronism that encourages crappy RP, but "mistake" is a bit harsh. How could you be a successor to The Most Popular Fantasy RPG System without it?
"mistake" is a bit harsh.
Yeah... I probably should've worded it better. Anyway, EL gave me a reasonable answer that I've understood, now I really want to sage this thread before somebody else tries to shove their views of good and evil down my throat *looks toward Aelryinth* >:|
<long rant about about why this thread is still happening incoming>
Seriously, I take it we can't get the hint. Alignment is in the game, but nothing says you have to use it. This is the universal rule of the game, you can run it however you choose. Your players may think differently but it is more likely that you hang around people who share similar views about gaming or at the very least don't really care enough to decide. If you want to put the time and effort into making a system that doesn't use alignment, go for it. I'm guessing however, that you and most people don't want to put any effort into such an endeavor and would rather have someone else do it for you. I can usually tell these individuals by the use of the phrase "I want something 'official'". Newsflash! Paizo does not have the time and resources to cater to every individual, they have to do what is good for their company and currently that is keeping alignment in the game.
<end rant>
we're still on the first page of this thread, a wonder.
I don't like alignements at all! But is was no mistake. I'm convinced paizo knew that alignement is a big "problem" possibly, but it's very deep rooted in the 3.5 system, and Pathfinder wants to be compatible, that's not possible without alignements.
|
To be honest, I am not really bothered about alignment. I pretty much ignore it until the rules demand it to be determined for a character (e.g. when someone casts Detect Evil, or Protection from Good). At that point I take a moment to think "Overall, is that character Good (or Chaotic, or whatever)?"
What I do find amusing is when someone posts on some forum saying that they had to have their character do something because their alignment was XYZ, often their choice of how their character should act
makes the game less fun for some other player(s) and so they are effectively trying to say their character's alignment made them act like a dick.
To me alignment has never driven roleplaying, rather instead how I choose to roleplay my character determines his alignment. If I act like a dick, its because I chose to act like a dick, I can't blame it on two character written on a piece of paper.
Of course, even without alignments you get such scenarios - people trying to excuse their behaviour by saying "by its what my character would do!" <rolls eyes>
So, as a successor to 3.5 I am not bothered that Paizo kept it in, but to be honest I am glad that D&D 4e pretty much removed alignment's intersection with the rules.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
James,
Why does Pathfinder use alignments?
Because we at Paizo happen to be quite fond of alignments.
1) They're one part of the game that has become a part of popular culture, to the extent that you sometimes see them mentioned out of context of gaming. Like in episodes of the Simpsons, for example. Abandoning something that's penetrated that deeply into the zeitgeist of popular culture is kind of foolish.
2) They're VERY useful ways to summarize people, locations, monsters, items, and effects using a pair of words, or even a pair of letters. It's easier for me to say: "This necromancer is chaotic evil" than it is to say "This necromancer loathes society and wants to kill lots of innocents." When your'e talking about things like stat blocks, it's a godsend to be able to summarize a creature's basic personality with two letters.
3) Alignments give us another descriptor that we can attach effects to. Weapons like unholy swords, spells like holy word, and the way damage reduction works for many outsiders more or less requires alignment rules of some sort.
4) The entire multiverse is built off of the nine alignments. If we ditch alignments, we would have essentially had to rebuild how demons, angels, devils, and all the other outsider races work from the ground up. And since that's both a lot of work AND since we at Paizo are very fond of how the multiverse is modeled after the alignments (which is why our model is so similar to the Great Wheel model of the multiverse from 1st edition, and why that model stuck with the game for decades), ditching alignments would be a poor choice.
5) Alignments help with diversified character creation. Every time I've played a d20 type game where alignment's been thrown out, the players end up effectively playing self-centered paranoid jerks who have no real reason to stick to different ethos or personalities. That might be because I play with lunatics, but when I play with these same gamers USING alignment, they end up creating more well-rounded characters that can interact with the society in the context of the game without being sociopaths. Again, this may just be how my jackals... I mean players... play the game, but even discounting this reason, points 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 above are more than enough to keep alignment as a core part of the game.