I'm sorry i haven't read all the posts in-depth, just can't handle another alignment thread.
But i will say this, it plays a lot simpler if you treat it as an objective game mechanic like any other.
You kill those goblin children? Evil. You took the easy way out, i don't care if you have a racial hatred of goblins and they killed your entire family. Evil.
Any arguments about alignment are nipped right in the bud at my table with me saying read your alignment. If you're good, then you should have compassion for all forms of life, just like it says in the description of Good alignment.
It's a line in the sand, cross it, and pay the (roleplaying) consequences.
|
Finally, I like alignments because I like being the "good guy" in my fantasy games. I like slaying the dragon and rescuing the fair maiden, just because it is the right thing to do.
One of the biggest reasons I hate alignment is this...the belief that you can't adequately play a good guy or a bad guy without a bit on your character sheet that has a check mark next to []good guy or []bad guy.
|
Finally, I like alignments because I like being the "good guy" in my fantasy games. I like slaying the dragon and rescuing the fair maiden, just because it is the right thing to do.One of the biggest reasons I hate alignment is this...the belief that you can't adequately play a good guy or a bad guy without a bit on your character sheet that has a check mark next to []good guy or []bad guy.
+1
Not a fan. I've gotten rid of it in my games.
I hate the idea that creatures are just "naturally evil" or "naturally good." Yawn. It's the most boring thing imaginable. Worse yet, it cheapens players who want to be good or evil. What's that, Righteous Paladin Higgins Von Higgins, you want to be awesomely good and bring mercy and justice to the world? Whatever, there's like five continents made of people like you. What's that, Corporeal Tyrannis, you want to be an evil monster that consumes the souls of the living? Get in line, there's like three lawful evil nations ahead of you.
Ironically, the reasons people give for liking alignment are the reasons I hate it. Why on earth would I want to take a key note NPC I've sent time and effort on and, rather then give her an interesting personality, become a humanoid robot and go "BEEP BOOP LAWFUL EVIL MUST HAVE THESE TRAITS." You say "Why would I spend so much time trying to craft this person when I can just shove two letters there instead?" That is anathema to me.
Or, as I mentioned, the "always ____ alignment" or "mostly _____ alignment." Way to suck out all the interesting. The best thing about Eberron is how fast and loose it plays with alignment and races. Stupid rigid "mostly _____" races are what leads to the horrible and stupid discussions like "Is it evil to kill goblin babies?"
Nations with alignment rankle me the most. There's never been a single country in the history of Earth that you could objectively say "Now that was one neutral good nation!"
Lastly, aside from tiresome alignment spells, everything you can do with alignment? YOu do better without. Wanna be the knight in shining armor good guy? Guess what, without alignment and "lawful good countries" around, you stand out and appear even more awesome. When you don't have class abilities that force you to act a certain way, deciding to act that way purely because your character is good at heart is a thousand times more impressive. The seduction into evil makes sense when you don't suddenly lose all your class powers because you decided to roleplay outside of the crutch of the Code.
And really, that's how I see alignment. It's a roleplaying crutch. I guess it's useful if your imagination is strained or broken, but if you're healthy, throw the crutch away.
And really, that's how I see alignment. It's a roleplaying crutch. I guess it's useful if your imagination is strained or broken, but if you're healthy, throw the crutch away.Thanks for teaching everyone how they should have fun while implying they have a strained imagination.
I would gladly play in any alignment-based or alignment-less game, but I would never play with people like you.
And really, that's how I see alignment
This is how alignment is, fact
I probably wouldn't want to play with someone who either doesn't read or willfully misinterprets my words in order to be insulted by them, either, to be fair.
YES. It's too simplistic and generic to provide anything concrete and at the same time adds an unnecessary layer of complexity (as seen by the alignment discussions). Especially the law/chaos scale, and what constitutes neutrality on both scales, are prone to debate.
It's not needed to roleplay, because it's so simple and basic that you need to put down character traits anyway - with those on paper, alignments don't really matter.
In our games, we've usually either just skipped it, or replaced it with a loyality/honor/aggression/generosity system with ratings of -5 to +5 to describe our characters and creatures. It's specific enough to be useful; even if the players usually have quite specific personality descriptions for their characters, it's very useful for NPCs and monsters.
This is all just IMO, of course.
wow i thought you left the thread, what are you doing back here if it is such a stupid thread?*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*
Because like most people I enjoy watching vehicular wrecks. You know what I'm talking about? The people who will slow down on the highway to see what happened or who will come out of their house just to see the damage. I'm one of those people when it comes to threads like this. "And lo, that I walk through the valley of flames, no post may harm me for I am uber leet and you are not."
I've always come up with an interesting personality for a character first, then had a fun time of seeing which alignment spoke those personality traits most readily fall under.
I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive, but eh.
Because like most people I enjoy watching vehicular wrecks. You know what I'm talking about? The people who will slow down on the highway to see what happened or who will come out of their house just to see the damage. I'm one of those people when it comes to threads like this. "And lo, that I walk through the valley of flames, no post may harm me for I am uber leet and you are not."wow i thought you left the thread, what are you doing back here if it is such a stupid thread?*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*
So most people have Chaotic Evil tendencies...
So most people have Chaotic Evil tendencies...
Because like most people I enjoy watching vehicular wrecks. You know what I'm talking about? The people who will slow down on the highway to see what happened or who will come out of their house just to see the damage. I'm one of those people when it comes to threads like this. "And lo, that I walk through the valley of flames, no post may harm me for I am uber leet and you are not."
In reality, much like in the game, people have all alignments and even though someone could be classified as NG one day doesn't mean that tomarrow they won't come off as CG the next all the while maintaining a TN alignment. So, yes that seems like a good assumption to make...especially for this thread.
|
|
There's also the fact that alignment should not be all-consuming. Just because a wizard sitting in the corner of an inn is Neutral Evil, that doesn't mean he's got an evil scheme brewing at the moment. He's probably just sitting around waiting for his food. Does the dude really deserve to be killed by some a@~~%$* paladin just because he didn't finish his food before the jerk walked in, did the whole "Detect Evil" thing, and then started to massacre anyone who made him go "ping" ?
There's also the fact that alignment should not be all-consuming. Just because a wizard sitting in the corner of an inn is Neutral Evil, that doesn't mean he's got an evil scheme brewing at the moment. He's probably just sitting around waiting for his food. Does the dude really deserve to be killed by some a~~@#@% paladin just because he didn't finish his food before the jerk walked in, did the whole "Detect Evil" thing, and then started to massacre anyone who made him go "ping" ?
If he's powerful enough to show up on detect evil (note that PF detect evil may not be the detect evil you remember), then, yeah, probably he does deserve to get massacred by a wandering paladin.
It’s not really needed, no. OD&D only had three alignments I think, the rather vague Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Alignment is just a convenient shorthand in creating a character quickly (which, once upon a time, was a goal; a new character was something you could whip up in under fifteen minutes). Rather than write a lengthy background, you could just say I’m playing a Chaotic Good Thief and there you have a fairly archetypal character, probably a Robin Hood sort. It’s a way to get people thinking about their character outside just the stats.
Personally, I'd prefer some kind of optional Personality Trait chart players could roll or select from over alignment but...whatever.
There's also the fact that alignment should not be all-consuming. Just because a wizard sitting in the corner of an inn is Neutral Evil, that doesn't mean he's got an evil scheme brewing at the moment. He's probably just sitting around waiting for his food. Does the dude really deserve to be killed by some a~~@#@% paladin just because he didn't finish his food before the jerk walked in, did the whole "Detect Evil" thing, and then started to massacre anyone who made him go "ping" ?If he's powerful enough to show up on detect evil (note that PF detect evil may not be the detect evil you remember), then, yeah, probably he does deserve to get massacred by a wandering paladin.
Whether he detects or not doesn't depend on how evil he is but how powerful he is. Thus, a 1st-level neutral evil wizard might be planning to burn down the orphanage and has already murdered tens of people. He may very well be the Villain with large V, while the level 8 neutral evil wizard is just a bit to egocentric to not register at evil.
[Whether he detects or not doesn't depend on how evil he is but how powerful he is.
True; I should have added:
A wizard powerful enough to show up on detect evil has the resources to not show up on detect evil. A wizard who isn't prepared for the wandering paladin accordingly deserves what he gets. :)
But then I suppose we instead have a similar argument with an evil barbarian waiting for his food.
[Whether he detects or not doesn't depend on how evil he is but how powerful he is.True; I should have added:
A wizard powerful enough to show up on detect evil has the resources to not show up on detect evil.
Not really, no. A 5th level wizard won't go around casting Misdirection 4 times per day unless REALLY up to something (I wouldn't even learn it until much later). The cheapest item to cover it up (except a large lead sheet) would be some slotted item (probably ring or amulet) that has a continuous undetectable alignment effect. According to the table, such an item would cost 3000 gp, which is 86% of a 5th level NPC wizards WBL. Even for a 10th level wizard, the item would take 1/3 of the WBL; if someone has that, it's a much better indicator that he's up to something than the detect spell itself is.
I started with rpg in (about) 1989-90.
I did not start with D&D (or whatever it was called back then ^^) - I started with a german system.
There is no "alignment"system in the game like there is in the D&D games.
I have played this game since then.
On side 1 of this threat someone wrote, that alignment is necessarcy for getting into a character or something like that.
That is a point I cannot aggree with - why I cannot should be clear?
BUT - I don't have a "problem" with alingment in Pathfinder. I play with it and anjoy doing it.
Sometimes it gets boring - sometimes I am annoyed by smite evil and almost every enemy being evil. But I got two possibilites for that - a GM who shares my opinion / respects it and changes thing - I take a break and play another game for some sessions.
For me personally alignment - no matter how "ruled" or not it is in a gaming system - is a very subjective thing and I treat it that way. In my games good fights with good and not every person considered evil in my own point of view or the one of the "western civilization" has to have an "evil alignment".
That's the way I handle it - and I think the great thing about playing any RPG is, that you can handle things like alignment how it fits the style of your group.
On that point I think there is NO way of doing it right, it's just about right doing it the ways that is the most fun to you.
Not really, no. A 5th level wizard won't go around casting Misdirection 4 times per day unless REALLY up to something (I wouldn't even learn it until much later). The cheapest item to cover it up (except a large lead sheet) would be some slotted item (probably ring or amulet) that has a continuous undetectable alignment effect. According to the table, such an item would cost 3000 gp, which is 86% of a 5th level NPC wizards WBL. Even for a 10th level wizard, the item would take 1/3 of the WBL; if someone has that, it's a much better indicator that he's up to something than the detect spell itself is.[Whether he detects or not doesn't depend on how evil he is but how powerful he is.True; I should have added:
A wizard powerful enough to show up on detect evil has the resources to not show up on detect evil.
I get 360 gp.
Undetectable alignment, level 1 bard spell. caster level 1, spell level 1, command word activated = 1800 gold.
Since the duration is 24 hours, you only need 1 charge per day. 1 use per day, divide by 5 = 360 gold.
Sure, it is a CL 1 spell, and thus very vulnerable to dispel magic, but if you are getting hit with dispel magic odds are they already know you are up to no good.
I get 360 gp.Undetectable alignment, level 1 bard spell. caster level 1, spell level 1, command word activated = 1800 gold.
Since the duration is 24 hours, you only need 1 charge per day. 1 use per day, divide by 5 = 360 gold.
Sure, it is a CL 1 spell, and thus very vulnerable to dispel magic, but if you are getting hit with dispel magic odds are they already know you are up to no good.
Oh, only saw it as a cleric spell (I'm not big on bards) at SL2, and didn't think about the command word. I'm not really sure it's intended for 24 hour spells to be priced that way, seeing as how a continuous effect specifically mentions 24 hour duration spells and still winds up with a result 3 times as expensive as the item which only requires a word at breakfast, but yeah, I'm not going to argue that as it's RAW (or as raw as non-core items will ever be).
I don't have much of a problem with alignment, as long as it's just another descriptive stat on the player sheet. Ok, so your dwarf bard has the brown hair, green eyes, weighing 71 kilograms, is neutral good, and wears his beard in rasta dreads. Oh, and he secretly lusts after that half-elf cleric in the temple of Erastil. Cool, I'm fine with that.
I do have an issue with it limiting non-divine classes, though. With divine casters, it makes sense because your power is loaned by something else, and that something else a)knows all/most of what you do, b) has an agenda, and c) has a lot of other people it could be giving the mojo you are getting to. Other than that, it's a simple descriptive stat, quantifying - to a degree - an aspect of your character.
Oh, only saw it as a cleric spell (I'm not big on bards) at SL2, and didn't think about the command word. I'm not really sure it's intended for 24 hour spells to be priced that way, seeing as how a continuous effect specifically mentions 24 hour duration spells and still winds up with a result 3 times as expensive as the item which only requires a word at breakfast, but yeah, I'm not going to argue that as it's RAW (or as raw as non-core items will ever be).
I get 360 gp.Undetectable alignment, level 1 bard spell. caster level 1, spell level 1, command word activated = 1800 gold.
Since the duration is 24 hours, you only need 1 charge per day. 1 use per day, divide by 5 = 360 gold.
Sure, it is a CL 1 spell, and thus very vulnerable to dispel magic, but if you are getting hit with dispel magic odds are they already know you are up to no good.
A continuous undetectable alignment would be better than the item I mentioned because it would not be as vulnerable to dispel magic. To get rid of a continuous effect item, they would have to target the magic item with a dispel magic, and even then all they could do is temporarily suppress the effect.
I don't mind the item being that cheap, I mean if you are really paranoid about hiding your alignment, get a charisma of 11, and multiclass into a level of bard. Make undetectable alignment one of your known spells, and you are good to go. Or you can get a wand with 50 charges of Undetectable Alignment for 375 gold and take ranks in use magic device.
|
Not really, no. A 5th level wizard won't go around casting Misdirection 4 times per day unless REALLY up to something (I wouldn't even learn it until much later). The cheapest item to cover it up (except a large lead sheet) would be some slotted item (probably ring or amulet) that has a continuous undetectable alignment effect. According to the table, such an item would cost 3000 gp, which is 86% of a 5th level NPC wizards WBL. Even for a 10th level wizard, the item would take 1/3 of the WBL; if someone has that, it's a much better indicator that he's up to something than the detect spell itself is.
So, rather than the problem being paladins, with 'Detect Evil, then smite', it becomes much more common to have clerics using 'Detect Magic at will, then pound anyone who registers as using illusion magic'?
I mean, seriously, someone who's disguising their appearance or nature MUST be up to no good, right?
Not really, no. A 5th level wizard won't go around casting Misdirection 4 times per day unless REALLY up to something (I wouldn't even learn it until much later). The cheapest item to cover it up (except a large lead sheet) would be some slotted item (probably ring or amulet) that has a continuous undetectable alignment effect. According to the table, such an item would cost 3000 gp, which is 86% of a 5th level NPC wizards WBL. Even for a 10th level wizard, the item would take 1/3 of the WBL; if someone has that, it's a much better indicator that he's up to something than the detect spell itself is.So, rather than the problem being paladins, with 'Detect Evil, then smite', it becomes much more common to have clerics using 'Detect Magic at will, then pound anyone who registers as using illusion magic'?
I mean, seriously, someone who's disguising their appearance or nature MUST be up to no good, right?
My chaotic good cleric often used undetectable alignment. I didn't want the bad guys to know easily that I was a good guy. I also had a habit of impersonating paladins, and was afraid someone was going to cast detect law/chaos on me.
This thread just won't die will it?
...
Meh, well anyway I understand now that keeping alignment was not a mistake on Paizo's part because Pathfinder is a continuation of 3.5 and a large part of its market prefers alignment. So financially, it was probably a very good decision.
Design-wise however, it gets iffy (for me and a couple of people). For those who say it provides simplicity could probably replace good/evil with ally/enemy and Law/Chaos with patient/impatient without any problems.
I'm going to be honest, I've never played a Tabletop RPG before this year, so my views are probably far, far, far different from those who've played this game for 10+ years and had alignment placed in their games for that long.
My views of alignment came from certain video games where they try to shift your alignment based on certain actions but those were always screwy because they could never know your intentions and could follow a situation similar to the "good luck, bad luck" shifting where something seems like it's good only to actually be bad and vice versa. Even if you did what seems like it was good only to lead to ultimate evil, you would be labeled as neutral to the game.
That's why I feel like alignments are silly because unless you have a limitless view into the future you shouldn't know if someone is good or evil. If you don't want to deal with shifty characters don't put them in and don't encourage shifty actions. Not only that, but someones view of what's good and evil is different from person to person. Generally it's based on ones morality derived from their society and the closer knit a group is the less it will diverge, but sometimes it's just different.
What's the element that describes evil? Wanting to cause destruction? Wanting to take control of others? Wanting to cause pain? Some people will say all of those, but what happens if someone wants to take over to prevent pain and destruction? and what about someone who's destructive to prevent being taken over? And that's where differences lie.
I don't care what your views of good and evil are but when you say it's not subjective you're being silly. For people who with similar mind sets, it's fine to keep alignment at which point they're just labels, but for people who disagree sticking it in the mechanics makes it frustrating. Because I play with people who I might have disagreements about what's good and evil sometimes, I guess I'm in the minority. But honestly, we can still play our game with absolutely no issues by ignoring alignment (Though tracking evil is always weird because the rules state that it's not how evil they are that determines the strength but their level and that they just happen to be evil). Anywho, I just wanted to know why alignment was glued into the mechanics of the game.
\o/ oh well
|
There's also the fact that alignment should not be all-consuming. Just because a wizard sitting in the corner of an inn is Neutral Evil, that doesn't mean he's got an evil scheme brewing at the moment. He's probably just sitting around waiting for his food. Does the dude really deserve to be killed by some a~~@#@% paladin just because he didn't finish his food before the jerk walked in, did the whole "Detect Evil" thing, and then started to massacre anyone who made him go "ping" ?If he's powerful enough to show up on detect evil (note that PF detect evil may not be the detect evil you remember), then, yeah, probably he does deserve to get massacred by a wandering paladin.
Given that the inherently selfish 'all for one and more for me!' nature of Neutral Evil applies broadly to a large subsection of 'greed is good / poor people deserve to be poor' Ayn Rand-a-philes, which pretty strongly influence our economic and political circles (and used to dominate them, and likely will again, perhaps as soon as late November), does that mean that Paladins, as a general rule, should smite Americans / capitalists / prosperity gospel followers on sight, since we've cherished the fundamental principle of 'every man for himself' and 'my money, possessions and property are more important than your life, liberty or dignity' since the coke-and-hooker fueled blowout '80s?
Or should he just smite those of us who've made it to 5th level?
In any event, the logic that it's okay to kill people who don't adhere to the same moral or ethical beliefs as yourself, even if they aren't actively doing anything to violate your beliefs at the moment, is the same sort of logic that leads people to fly planes into buildings and think of it as a righteous act.
I like to think of Paladins as being somewhat *less* psycho than that...
<The thought of a 'Paladin of al-Qaeda?' thread causes set to kick the thread over and dance around it's burning corpse>
Not really, no. A 5th level wizard won't go around casting Misdirection 4 times per day unless REALLY up to something (I wouldn't even learn it until much later). The cheapest item to cover it up (except a large lead sheet) would be some slotted item (probably ring or amulet) that has a continuous undetectable alignment effect. According to the table, such an item would cost 3000 gp, which is 86% of a 5th level NPC wizards WBL. Even for a 10th level wizard, the item would take 1/3 of the WBL; if someone has that, it's a much better indicator that he's up to something than the detect spell itself is.So, rather than the problem being paladins, with 'Detect Evil, then smite', it becomes much more common to have clerics using 'Detect Magic at will, then pound anyone who registers as using illusion magic'?
I mean, seriously, someone who's disguising their appearance or nature MUST be up to no good, right?
Of course not, I didn't mean it in that way. Now that Charender showed how easy it is to conceal alignment I don't think it's an unreasonable investment. And you should NEVER kill someone just for detecting as anything. The thing is that if someone uses undetectable alignment, and you try using know alignment, you know that he's probably deliberately making sure no-one knows what he's up to, and if there's a killer around leaving frostburned victims, it's definately worth investigating him.
EDIT: It's a bit like a certain bitterleaf holding up a sheet of lead whenever the paladins are trying to detect evil on him; you don't smite someone for that, but you don't leave them out of sight. Since at least I use a lot of characters that would be defined as evil in the alignment system in my campaigns, as both helpful and unhelpful NPC's, being smitey of everything that registers as evil would be a sure way to make sure the paladin doesn't have any smiting left when the dragon comes.
I don't care what your views of good and evil are but when you say it's not subjective you're being silly ... Because I play with people who I might have disagreements about what's good and evil sometimes ... we can still play our game with absolutely no issues by ignoring alignment
Your post confuses me. You say it's silly not to treat alignment subjectively, then talk about how that causes disagreements, then say so the solution is to ignore it. I don't get it.
I agree, that in real life the idea of 'good' and 'evil' is subjective. No one thinks they're the bad guy.
But in dnd, with tangible forces of Good and Evil, where particular Outsiders are inherently Good/Evil, and spells function from an objective viewpoint to me it seems silly to let the game degenerate into arguments about subjectivity.
Instead of arguing, then ignoring the whole mechanic, try treating it as an objective test that you can apply without considering what his/her intentions are.
It's the only way to avoid the ad nauseum arguments, IME.
|
|
It wouldn't make a shred of difference. ANY alignment system would be subject to the same rules lawyering and argumentation the current one fosters.I'd like to see an alternate alignment system.
Agreed. Only way to avoid this problem is not playing with rules lawyering fascists. Someone may respond to this with all sorts of reasons why it's good to be a rules lawyering fascist, probably something to do with paladins. They are automatically wrong.
Normally, I like alignments for most of the reasons already mentioned. There are a few tweaks I would make, like the fact that Antipaladins should be LE. Overall, it's a good shorthand.
Recently, I started playing with a GM who didn't like alignments. We talked a little about the issue and we started comparing the alignments of fictional characters. When he tried to tell me that Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly) was Lawful Neutral I A) Understood why he had problems with alignments. B) Agreed with him not to use alignments C) Have otherwise had a pretty good time in his game.
All the Best,
Kerney
That's why I feel like alignments are silly because unless you have a limitless view into the future you shouldn't know if someone is good or evil. If you don't want to deal with shifty characters don't put them in and don't encourage shifty actions. Not only that, but someones view of what's good and evil is different from person to person. Generally it's based on ones morality derived from their society and the closer knit a group is the less it will diverge, but sometimes it's just different.
I wrote a giant response to this which was tragically eaten by the forum software. Digest version:
1) Consider the idea that even if good/evil aren't absolute in real life, that maybe in the world of a PF game they could be.
2) If pulling alignment out works for you, great; for some games I think that's a good idea, but also consider that for other kinds of games/worlds/stories it might add something.
<The thought of a 'Paladin of al-Qaeda?' thread causes set to kick the thread over and dance around it's burning corpse>
Is it sad that my first thought was "I would allow that"?
"D&D ain't realistic. Never has been, never will be."
The Problem with registering as evil is not a paladin randomly smiting people. The problem is not getting anything important done.
Evil characters above a certain level cannot infiltrate good organisations. Evil characters never get important business contracts if their opposite checks for evil, and thus, doesn't trust them. Especially scheming clerics or demons or devils have a snowflake's chance in hell to infiltrate important good organisations. It doesn't work. If infiltration is a concern for them, they check for alignment. For magic, like Undetectable Alignment is. Or illusions. Or whatever. Might just throw a couple of dispels on him, too, you never know.
Detecting and disrupting disguises is far simpler than disguising itself. It kills plotlines, or at the very, very least, makes them awfully more complicated or reliant on stupidity.
Now, as a general, rough descriptive term, alignment works. Mechanically it creates a bucketload of unnecessary problems.
A lot of that depends on how common you make magic.
Sure in a high magic world when mages and clerics are a dime a dozen, then getting someone to cast detect evil for you would be pretty simple. The same is true for spell like detect lies and zone of truth. Of course by the same token, it would be a lot easier to get things like potions of undetectable alignment and glibness to counter those things. I imagine in those worlds there is an ongoing arms race between divinations and spells that counter divinations.
In a low magic world, the vast majority of people have never seen a magic spell, and getting someone who can cast detect evil would be like pulling teeth. With a little research a bad guy can figure which branches of an organization are without magical support and focus on infiltrating those.
Also, who says the bad guy has to infiltrate the organization directly? He could always have his low level minions(who don't detect as evil) do it.
Finally, look at Walmart. There are lots of people here who think that Wal-mart is a big, soulless, evil corporation. Lots of people still shop there. I am not sure that evil people will be cast out the way you describe.
I am not making magic any more common or uncommon than in any random campaign setting out there. Most of the spells you need are first level (or lower!). If there is a single paladin, he can even routinely sweep newcomers for evil auras with no more investment than a few moments of time. Detecting Magic requires a cantrip. Which every spellcaster out there can cast all day long.
The abundance of potions, scrolls or magic earrings of undetectable alignment and glibness is completely irrelevant, because they can all be detected. If a certain part of an organisation is important enough to warrant infiltration, they will check for infiltration, and there is next to ZERO possibility that check won't reveal protective and disguising magic.
The level 2 Misdirection spell solves most of those problems.
Yes, it beats detect magic.
I don't care what your views of good and evil are but when you say it's not subjective you're being silly ... Because I play with people who I might have disagreements about what's good and evil sometimes ... we can still play our game with absolutely no issues by ignoring alignmentYour post confuses me. You say it's silly not to treat alignment subjectively, then talk about how that causes disagreements, then say so the solution is to ignore it. I don't get it.
I agree, that in real life the idea of 'good' and 'evil' is subjective. No one thinks they're the bad guy.
But in dnd, with tangible forces of Good and Evil, where particular Outsiders are inherently Good/Evil, and spells function from an objective viewpoint to me it seems silly to let the game degenerate into arguments about subjectivity.
Instead of arguing, then ignoring the whole mechanic, try treating it as an objective test that you can apply without considering what his/her intentions are.
It's the only way to avoid the ad nauseum arguments, IME.
When you take three sentences from two different paragraphs and ignore the context, I can understand how you would be confused as that would severely penalize your comprehension. -_-
I said it's silly to say that good and evil are objective (instead of subjective) even in the game world. When you play a game, you go by what the creator of the world views as good/evil but it's still subjective, just to the creator and not to the player. And yes we do disagree about what's good and evil, but instead of arguing we just let our disagreements slide. Our group doesn't necessarily talk about what's a good action and what's an evil action (such as revenge or letting a evil person die a painful death) as that is totally subjective; we ignore it. However we can't really ignore alignment when it's tied in mechanically such as using detect evil (which by the way works really silly as I've explained multiple times in previous posts).
I've already explained why I don't like dealing with objective alignment, I've tried it before and it breaks my suspension of disbelief and so yes the solution is to just ignore alignment. However anytime I deal with alignment as is, furthers to ruin my immersion. If that's the way you like your games, fine; I'll accept that's what you want to do. This is just my personal opinion
1) Consider the idea that even if good/evil aren't absolute in real life, that maybe in the world of a PF game they could be.
Like I've said before, I've tried it and but it really ruins the immersion for me. I just can't do it. In order for me to imagine alignment as 'objective', I would need to believe that everyone in that world agrees on it, and if that's so, then why are there conflicts and wars? It just seems contradictory and I can't do it. Maybe others can, but it just really irks me to attempt a objective standpoint on good and evil. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I can't imagine something being inherently destructive and blood thirsty or something inherently gentle and helpful, but the terms good and evil are subjective and unless you apply more definitive adjectives they remain vague and up to interpretation.
2) If pulling alignment out works for you, great; for some games I think that's a good idea, but also consider that for other kinds of games/worlds/stories it might add something.
I didn't say alignment on its own is a bad thing. I just think it is quite fine and I believe it gives a character a standpoint of what they're attempting, just that it's subjective to that character. The only thing that bothered me about it is that it's tied into the mechanics. Generally when you say it's 'objective' you are just looking at it from one view, so in the end you're taking away from the story and simplifying it by taking away the other views of what's good and evil.
No, it doesn't. For one, it's duration is 1 hour / level, meaning you need some respectable caster level to keep it up constantly. It might work if you knew of a potential screening ahead, though that is certainly not a given.
Eh, between extend spell (rod or feat) and +caster level boost items, I tend to assume hour/level is all day for most midlevel casters if they really want it to be. A rod of lesser extend is only 3k gp. A character who can't afford that probably also doesn't detect as evil.
And there's the problem. It MIGHT. It allows a saving throw. A will save, by a caster, no less. Thats a heavy chance for the spell outright not working. An item with a constant effect or a lot of potions and scrolls would be even worse, because of the horrid save DC items have.
You've got me there: I somehow missed that detect-casters get a save against it. That being said, you could fix the problem pretty neatly for your world by house-ruling that they don't.
If not, how about a Ring of Mind Shielding + casting Magic Aura to make it appear nonmagical? Seems like you'd be covered there unless someone decides to cast identify on the ring, but then, if they get it off you you're already sunk.
just can't do it. In order for me to imagine alignment as 'objective', I would need to believe that everyone in that world agrees on it, and if that's so, then why are there conflicts and wars?
My take on it would be: (in game / for the game) alignment is objective on some cosmic level that spells work off of, but most people don't agree on it, can't perceive it or don't interpret it as such. In other words, even if the universe knows who's naughty and who's nice, its inhabitants might not.
Thus the bullying, opportunistic orc doesn't think of himself doing wrong (indeed, he considers being the way he is smart, and people who won't make the same choices weak or stupid, which he sees as bad things), but on some level it still amounts to evil.
Does that make sense / work any better for you?
|
|
When he tried to tell me that Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly) was Lawful Neutral...I'd like to see that argument, because I'd probably call him Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral (with good tendencies).
Agreed. That's how I saw him. In fact him and Inara are what happens when LG and CG have unresolved sexual tension. The point was me and my GM were had radically different views of alignment so in his case, I dropped the issue.
His argument wasn't good but it basically came down that he had a code of conduct that he followed. To him that made sense. To me it was a wtf moment. Rather then convince him otherwise, agreed to support his 'no alignment game' because by accepting that I made the issue a non-issue.
All the Best,
Kerney
I'm just looking to see if having alignment provides anything other than
a) class conduct
b) alignment based magic
I think that alignment based conduct is often more important than class based conduct.
There are no rules on how to behave as a wizard. Take, for example, the necromancer and the enchanter. The player will come up with his own set of rules regarding how to behave as a LE wizard versus a CG wizard. Adhering to stereotypes, the necromancer would be LE and the enchanter would be NG. But the player could be a NG necromancer or LE enchanter. A NG necromancer who raised the dead for pleasant ordeals like tea parties or positive ends like the construction of a public library would be really fun to play, but that wouldn't be possible if alignment were imposed on classes by default.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I haven't seen alignment cause any headaches. It's pretty straightforward.
P.S. Malcolm Reynold is Lawful.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties... Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability."
Mal's #1 priority is respecting his own authority. Watch the show. There is a 98.6% chance that, if he said that cherry coke was better, and I said that vanilla coke was better, he would punch me. 24/7 member size contest. He also respects the tradition of space as an open frontier, is willing to tell the truth (even when it makes people hate him), judges crew members when they fail to perform their duties, fulfills his contracts in the face of danger and exhibits reactionary adherence to the resistance, as well as closed mindedness, self righteousness and a general lack of adaptability.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it... Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
He does follow his conscience (the medicine episode), and he resents being told what to do, but only insofar as it usurps his own authority. He hates new ideas, he does what he promises a vast majority of the time (holding others to that same standard), he is neither adaptable nor flexible, he is never irresponsible, he would claim that he did not resent "legitimate" authority, and that last line is about as far from Serenity as you can get.
|
|
I like Alignment. Except for the whole 'applying a subjective morality methodology to an objective pantheistic universe id est: There is a plane of existence consisting of Pure Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. Good/Evil/Law/Chaos Gods live there.' And that just seems sort of ludicrou- Oh? Really? Someone has already said that about eleventy-billion times? Maybe that's because it seems like something that might make sense; speaking of sense - there's my two cents. Sheboygen out.
post script: Paladins.