we are arguing opinions, not RAW, for the simple reason that alignment is, by RAW, totally dependant on the GM opinions.
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls."
I would argue this is the thread winner.
Greg
State why, don't flaimbait. In reality morality IS subjective and it IS relative. All concepts are necessarily.
D&D isn't reality. In reality, I completely agree.
I object to your stated point that the alignment system is subjective. PF does imply, if not outright state it is up to DM discretion at several points. But there are several key lines to remember. Namely, the main lines that describe each of the 4 alignment trees.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
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. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
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.
Despite the "implies" in the statements, it seems clear to me. Me and my DM think it's actually rather clear. There hasn't been a situation that comes to mind that we couldn't logic out using the guidelines presented in the alignment system.
But we also see eye-to-eye on a lot of other things, so maybe that's just us. I dunno. I welcome anecdotes that alignment couldn't solve. I'd like to see one.
|
State why, don't flaimbait. In reality morality IS subjective and it IS relative. All concepts are necessarily.
And moral relativism is a thread loser.
1) We are speaking of a game
2) In particular of the Pathfinder game
3) You speak of "reality"
4) You start from other games and pretend to apply those other games morality to Pathfinder
5) You state "In a non-alignment campaign, a natural consequence WOULD BE that a paladin that couldn't reconcile their moral differences with the offending PC could smite him.". At that point you have already borked the game mechanics.
Your Paladin is not what the game define a "Paladin".
So for the purpose of the Pathfinder game and this thread your arguing "real life" morality and "not Pathfinder" morality is a thread loser.
1) We are speaking of a game2) In particular of the Pathfinder game
3) You speak of "reality"
4) You start from other games and pretend to apply those other games morality to Pathfinder
5) You state "In a non-alignment campaign, a natural consequence WOULD BE that a paladin that couldn't reconcile their moral differences with the offending PC could smite him.". At that point you have already borked the game mechanics.
Your Paladin is not what the game define a "Paladin".So for the purpose of the Pathfinder game and this thread your arguing "real life" morality and "not Pathfinder" morality is a thread loser.
1.) So what?
2.) So what?
3.) So what? I can still tell right from wrong when I play pretend.
4.) What other games? I have used nothing but examples from pathfinder to support all of my claims. Including the fact that objective alignment is completely contrary to the games definition of alignment.
5.) There is absolutely no meaningful difference between a paladin who can smite evil, has a strict code of honor, and is 'lawful good' and a paladin who can smite and has a strict code of honor.
1) We are speaking of a game2) In particular of the Pathfinder game
3) You speak of "reality"
4) You start from other games and pretend to apply those other games morality to Pathfinder
5) You state "In a non-alignment campaign, a natural consequence WOULD BE that a paladin that couldn't reconcile their moral differences with the offending PC could smite him.". At that point you have already borked the game mechanics.
Your Paladin is not what the game define a "Paladin".So for the purpose of the Pathfinder game and this thread your arguing "real life" morality and "not Pathfinder" morality is a thread loser.
1.) So what?
2.) So what?
3.) So what? I can still tell right from wrong when I play pretend.
4.) What other games? I have used nothing but examples from pathfinder to support all of my claims. Including the fact that objective alignment is completely contrary to the games definition of alignment.
5.) There is absolutely no meaningful difference between a paladin who can smite evil, has a strict code of honor, and is 'lawful good' and a paladin who can smite and has a strict code of honor.
3.The point is that what is wrong is the game does not always match what is right(good) or wrong(evil) in real life. In the game the ends don't justify the means. If you raise undead it is evil. In real life, doing certain wrongs may be overlooked at times.
5. In the game there is. If you are not lawful good in the game you have no smite ability. That lawful good is paramount to the class.
And I appreciate it, really. I hate being wrong >.>
Trust us we can tell.
Echoing my point I made earlier in this thread, I think it's important to remember that you are free to handle alignment in any way you wish, it's your game after all. If your DM and other players might not agree with your liberal or strict interpretations of morality, well, that's a discussion for your group.
Alignment discussions in general is very bad, because morality is always subjective, and on the Internet you will see people from all corners of the world and we all have different ways of seeing things.
3.The point is that what is wrong is the game does not always match what is right(good) or wrong(evil) in real life. In the game the ends don't justify the means. If you raise undead it is evil. In real life, doing certain wrongs may be overlooked at times.5. In the game there is. If you are not lawful good in the game you have no smite ability. That lawful good is paramount to the class.
3.) You didn't really address the question here. You just restated that it was true. Why should what is evil in the real world be acceptable in the game world and visa versa simply because you are playing make believe? Rape is wrong and the players know that it is wrong. That's all that is needed. Good stories, even fictional ones don't need to rely on fictional morality. There is no reason that a player can't come to the conclusion that raising undead is wrong on his own.
5.) The implication is that without the words "Lawful good" written on a paladin's character sheet he couldn't be interesting. I haven't used alignment in a long time. Player's have gotten on just fine as paladin's with out it. Not having an alignment system doesn't change the code of conduct, nor does it remove morality. Paladin's are still champions of good. The difference is that a paladin who values freedom above all else and a paladin who values compassion above all else have different priorities.
3.) You didn't really address the question here. You just restated that it was true. Why should what is evil in the real world be acceptable in the game world and visa versa simply because you are playing make believe? Rape is wrong and the players know that it is wrong. That's all that is needed. Good stories, even fictional ones don't need to rely on fictional morality. There is no reason that a player can't come to the conclusion that raising undead is wrong on his own.
5.) The implication is that without the words "Lawful good" written on a paladin's character sheet he couldn't be interesting. I haven't used alignment in a long time. Player's have gotten on just fine as paladin's with out it. Not having an alignment system doesn't change the code of conduct, nor does it remove morality. Paladin's are still champions of good. The difference is that a paladin who values freedom above all else and a paladin who values compassion above all else have different priorities.
3. Whether or not they should be the same or acceptable depends on the game being played. In PF the morality is already defined for us, and that is what the OP was asking about. I saw this as a discussion of designer intent, not as how I would do it, nor how my views would in real life affect make believe land. Not every right or wrong is spelled out in the book so of course some things like rape will have to be carried over since they are generally accepted as being wrong. Some people would see raising undead or summoning an evil demon as a tool, and not as a bad thing no matter the risk or stigma involved. As an example I will go back to my Eberron example of binding a sentient creature to a magical device just to gain power. In my eyes it is evil, but the game does not treat it as such. I could go and houserule it to being evil, but since it is something that is every popular in the game world I would have to undo a lot of other things. It would probably be easier to make up another source of magical power, and get rid of the binding altogether. Instead I understand that the game's moral's are different from my own in this regard, and I play within those bounds. It also helps to not have to worry about issues when my real life views don't conflict with BoB's(not a real person). I had a game where it was debated the morality of putting the heads of dead enemies on stakes. Some saw it as evil. I saw it as disrespectful, but not really evil. As the GM I did not really care one way or the other, but it led to a 30 minute stop in actual play. If it were something the game had an opinion on it would have been resolved much quicker. I think the only time alignment is an issue is when people want to combine real life and fake morality. I think it is better to just choose one or the other because it seems the two don't mix well together.
5. I am not saying it would or would not be interesting, but it would not be a PF paladin. Being good trumps the code of conduct. You can violate the code and still keep your powers in certain cases. You can't lose your LG status without becoming an ex-paladin though. The loss of the alignment is more severe in the game as written. The game allowing you to cooperate with evil for short times is an example of that, as long as you atone for it.|
|
5) You state "In a non-alignment campaign, a natural consequence WOULD BE that a paladin that couldn't reconcile their moral differences with the offending PC could smite him.". At that point you have already borked the game mechanics.
Your Paladin is not what the game define a "Paladin".
5.) There is absolutely no meaningful difference between a paladin who can smite evil, has a strict code of honor, and is 'lawful good' and a paladin who can smite and has a strict code of honor.
A lot of NULL replies, so I will answer only this one.
Strict code of honor has noting to do with being real life or game good. A strict code of honor is one of the thing that has started plenty of useless wars and personal vendettas.
Old stile Mafia Dons have strict codes of honor. That don't make them examples to follow.
You must get full revenge for a slight is part of plenty of codes of honor.
Medieval knights had (in theory) a strict code of honor. That in no way made their behaviour good even when they were following it. And their code of honor was applicable only when they interacting with other "honourable" men (i.e. male nobles or knights).
So there is a big difference between a Lawful Good Paladin with a code of honor and a guy with a code of honor that wish to have a paladin power at no real cost.
As long as it is your home game you can apply the rules you like, but you should realize that when you are changing this kind of fundamental mechanics you are not speaking of Pathfider or even D&D. You are speaking of WPharolin game.
3.) You didn't really address the question here. You just restated that it was true. Why should what is evil in the real world be acceptable in the game world and visa versa simply because you are playing make believe? Rape is wrong and the players know that it is wrong. That's all that is needed. Good stories, even fictional ones don't need to rely on fictional morality. There is no reason that a player can't come to the conclusion that raising undead is wrong on his own.5.) The implication is that without the words "Lawful good" written on a paladin's character sheet he couldn't be interesting. I haven't used alignment in a long time. Player's have gotten on just fine as paladin's with out it. Not having an alignment system doesn't change the code of conduct, nor does it remove morality. Paladin's are still champions of good. The difference is that a paladin who values freedom above all else and a paladin who values compassion above all else have different priorities.
3) Plenty of the Codes of honor have nothing against rape. Au contraire, rape for a lot of them is a "good" way to force the raped woman to a reparation wedding to cleanse the raped woman honor.
5) So far your words have said exactly the opposite. You say that you want to remove the alignment stricture a define what is good as you find useful and in a relative way.
Diego, Talon, Wraith, etc.
Let's say you're right, and the game has objective morality.
All adventurers are evil because they kill. It says right there evil people kill, and adventurers kill monsters all the time. BY STRICT READING OF THE RULES on alignment you pretty much can't play the game and be good. Ergo the rules on alignment are useless since they rely on Rule 0 and GM discretion.
If Power Attack said: Benefit: You do something cool and awesome and mega-sweet. And it didn't define those terms, it would be a poorly written feat. There's fluff and there's rules and where the alignment descriptions are applied to actual hard rules the game completely freaking fails.
The only reason there are alignment threads like this is because the alignment rules are incomprehensible and idiotic. If the rules change from DM to DM because a DM HAS to add his own interpretation to ill-defined terms in the alignment descriptions, then the rules are by definition SUBJECTIVE.
You're trying to say they are objective...but malleable?
Diego, Talon, Wraith, etc.
Let's say you're right, and the game has objective morality.
All adventurers are evil because they kill. It says right there evil people kill, and adventurers kill monsters all the time. BY STRICT READING OF THE RULES on alignment you pretty much can't play the game and be good. Ergo the rules on alignment are useless since they rely on Rule 0 and GM discretion.
If Power Attack said: Benefit: You do something cool and awesome and mega-sweet. And it didn't define those terms, it would be a poorly written feat. There's fluff and there's rules and where the alignment descriptions are applied to actual hard rules the game completely freaking fails.
The only reason there are alignment threads like this is because the alignment rules are incomprehensible and idiotic. If the rules change from DM to DM because a DM HAS to add his own interpretation to ill-defined terms in the alignment descriptions, then the rules are by definition SUBJECTIVE.
You're trying to say they are objective...but malleable?
I never liked that killing part in the evil description. RAW it is evil. RAI it should have been does not kill without good cause. Once again more bad wording makes the alignment system difficult to work with.
The interpretation can be subjective, but the intent is not, and that is what I have been saying all along.
I've often thought that summoning a monster to fight and die for you doesn't sound like the act of a good person. I know its not really dwelt upon, its just a spell. They appear and fight for you.
Presumably they come from somewhere, and they are real. At least for the purposes of an imaginery game they're real creatures of whatever type. It would seem an incredibly callous thing to magically teleport in a creature from wherever and whatever it was doing to fight and die for you. If it beats your opponent or survives the encounter it magically reappears whereve it last was wondering what the heck just happened.
Why isn't there humans on the summon monster list. Or just simply a Summon Human or Summon Elven Mage. It doesn't seem any more or less callous than Summon Monster.
In our group, when summoning nature's ally, we view it as summoning the "spirit" of the forest, and it then takes physical form. If it dies, or the spell ends; it dis-corporates back into the natural world and is not diminished. Summoning actual beings (demons, devils, celestials) brings that unique being into physical form with the same results listed above (with the exception that the being goes back to its plane of origin). The difference is that these extra-planar beings will remember the summoner, and may being to either take an active interest in their well-being, or an active and very violent hatred of the summoner; all depending on how they were treated, what the purpose of the summoning was for, and the end result of the summoning.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Ohheylookatthis
Yet despite this, mortals have sought demonic aid since the start. Be it an instinctual draw to self-destruction or a misguided lust for power, conjurers to this day continue to draw forth demons with forbidden magic. Some conjure demons for lore, while others call upon them to serve as assassins or guards. Demons view such summoners with a mix of hatred and thanks, for most demons lack the ability to come to the Material Plane to wreak havoc on their own. They depend on the mad to call them up from the Abyss, and while they gnash their fangs and rail against the commands and strictures enforced, most demons find ways to twist their summoners' demands so that even the most tightly controlled demonic slave leaves a trace of ruin and despair in its wake. More often than not, a foolish spellcaster makes a fatal mistake in the conjuring and pays for it with blood, unwittingly releasing a terrible blight upon the world as his conjuration breaks free of his control.
A lot of NULL replies, so I will answer only this one.Strict code of honor has noting to do with being real life or game good. A strict code of honor is one of the thing that has started plenty of useless wars and personal vendettas.
Old stile Mafia Dons have strict codes of honor. That don't make them examples to follow.
List of people with a Code of Honor: Samurai, Batman, Spiderman, Puss in Boots, Shirou Emiya, Don Quixote, Sir Lancelot, Hannibal Lecter, Richard Rahl, Malcolm Reynolds, Kamina, Luke Skywalker, Captain Carrot, Cecil, Commander Shepherd, etc.
You're right, a Code of Honor doesn't say anything about your alignment, and frankly, it shouldn't. But the sort of Code you choose to follow speaks volumes about the caliber of your characer. It is also much more interesting than an alignment description.
You must get full revenge for a slight is part of plenty of codes of honor.Medieval knights had (in theory) a strict code of honor. That in no way made their behaviour good even when they were following it. And their code of honor was applicable only when they interacting with other "honourable" men (i.e. male nobles or knights).
Luckily, Paladin's aren't medieval knights and their code of conduct is not that of a medieval knight. You see, the code of conduct is only a fraction of the actual code that a paladin has to live by. Paladin's derive their power from being a paragon of a god. That god has tenets and paladin's who break those tenet's suffer the consequence. You seem to be suggesting that without forcing players to be lawful good that they will all be evil. I see no reason to believe that that's true at all.
So there is a big difference between a Lawful Good Paladin with a code of honor and a guy with a code of honor that wish to have a paladin power at no real cost.
The biggest difference is that one follows the example of his god and chooses his to live his life by upholding justice, freedom, good will, etc. and the other acts to conform to his alignment. Otherwise, no there is no significant difference. You don't need to force players to be lawful good to get them to do good deeds.
As long as it is your home game you can apply the rules you like, but you should realize that when you are changing this kind of fundamental mechanics you are not speaking of Pathfider or even D&D. You are speaking of WPharolin game.
Yes, I actually am. If you were to stand in during one of my play sessions and I didn't tell you that there wasn't any alignment in my game, you wouldn't be able to tell.
Yes, I actually am. If you were to stand in during one of my play sessions and I didn't tell you that there wasn't any alignment in my game, you wouldn't be able to tell.
Many games can be played without that(alignment) even coming up except in very specific situation. The ability/inability to detect the absence of alignment does not really prove anything.
A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.
Pathfinder(WPharolin version) is not the same as Pathfinder in many people's opinions, but since there is no measuring stick that says _____ many changes stops you from playing the same game you will say that you are still playing the same game we are, while we will believe you are playing a different enough version that your arguments don't apply with regard to alignment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.
I've always found it rather ridiculous that a paladin is held to a higher standard of conduct than is a cleric of the same god.
A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.I've always found it rather ridiculous that a paladin is held to a higher standard of conduct than is a cleric of the same god.
I agree. I think the cleric should have been the representative of the deity, and the paladin should have just been a holy warrior. Somehow the paladin gets double tasked.
Many games can be played without that(alignment) even coming up except in very specific situation. The ability/inability to detect the absence of alignment does not really prove anything.A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.
Pathfinder(WPharolin version) is not the same as Pathfinder in many people's opinions, but since there is no measuring stick that says _____ many changes stops you from playing the same game you will say that you are still playing the same game we are, while we will believe you are playing a different enough version that your arguments don't apply with regard to alignment.
Paladin's are still held to a higher standard in my games. As far as smite, in my games he just does it. Note, I don't have Law and Good and whatever crap DR's either. It isn't much different.
Your logic about my game not being pathfinder doesn't hold. If I am not playing pathfinder than neither is someone who uses armor as DR or spell recharge. In 3.5 if someone used a variant in the UA were they no longer playing D&D? Do action points change the game so much that it is unrecognizable? What if you use taint mechanics? Do words of power change the game into unrecognizably? Is monopoly a different game when you use the free parking house rules?
Of course I'm playing the same game. My game has the same core mechanics, same ability scores, same classes, same skills, same spells, same monsters, same items, same combat rules, same races. Saying I'm not playing pathfinder anymore, is kinda like saying I don't play World of Warcraft because I use add-ons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? would you consider putting a reason besides just laying out a bald statement?
I thought it would be pretty blatantly obvious. But I'll spell it out for you:
A cleric is the living embodiment of a god's power. As illustrated by the fact that they can cast divine spells of 5th level and up. It makes no sense to me that a god would grant a cleric greater power while ignoring "offenses" that would cause the same god to yank away a paladin's power.
Many games can be played without that(alignment) even coming up except in very specific situation. The ability/inability to detect the absence of alignment does not really prove anything.A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.
Pathfinder(WPharolin version) is not the same as Pathfinder in many people's opinions, but since there is no measuring stick that says _____ many changes stops you from playing the same game you will say that you are still playing the same game we are, while we will believe you are playing a different enough version that your arguments don't apply with regard to alignment.
You can still hold the paladin to the EXACT same standards without two words next to his name.
As for smite and alignment spells I let them work fine against monsters. The removal of alignment for me is simply to facilitate roleplaying and to remove alignment debates, and it worked great. Monsters can still be evil, because I don't need to worry about their alignment restricting their roleplaying. As far as alignment based spells cast AT the players...well I happen to have control over that and don't really do it. If it happens I treat everyone as Neutral.
I assure you, PF without alignments (for the players) is the exact same game. There have been ZERO issues. At least in the 5 months and 8 levels I ran it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@WPharolin
Never before have I seen someone who espoused my opinion on character alignment so precisely.
BFF!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.I've always found it rather ridiculous that a paladin is held to a higher standard of conduct than is a cleric of the same god.Why? would you consider putting a reason besides just laying out a bald statement? Paladins are held to a higher standard because for one reason, that's the model they're drawn from. The Paladin is drawn from a Heroic ideal. Clerics are more generic.
However there is no stopping anyone from creating an order of clerics that ARE held to higher standards than the rest.
Just one question.... Do you really think that Paladins should have LOWER standards than clerics?
I actually think the clerics should have been the ones with the higher standards. They get to call on angel and such for help. They get the spells from the deity. If anyone should be the walking example of a deity it should be them. The paladin would have been better off as an honorable holy warrior, but not tasked like he is now, IMHO.
Many games can be played without that(alignment) even coming up except in very specific situation. The ability/inability to detect the absence of alignment does not really prove anything.A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.
Pathfinder(WPharolin version) is not the same as Pathfinder in many people's opinions, but since there is no measuring stick that says _____ many changes stops you from playing the same game you will say that you are still playing the same game we are, while we will believe you are playing a different enough version that your arguments don't apply with regard to alignment.
Paladin's are still held to a higher standard in my games. As far as smite, in my games he just does it. Note, I don't have Law and Good and whatever crap DR's either. It isn't much different.
Your logic about my game not being pathfinder doesn't hold. If I am not playing pathfinder than neither is someone who uses armor as DR or spell recharge. In 3.5 if someone used a variant in the UA were they no longer playing D&D? Do action points change the game so much that it is unrecognizable? What if you use taint mechanics? Do words of power change the game into unrecognizably? Is monopoly a different game when you use the free parking house rules?
Of course I'm playing the same game. My game has the same core mechanics, same ability scores, same classes, same skills, same spells, same monsters, same items, same combat rules, same races. Saying I'm not playing pathfinder anymore, is kinda like saying I don't play World of Warcraft because I use add-ons.
I am not saying you are not playing Pathfinder. I am saying you are not playing it like we are discussing it because the game does not take real world morality into account on many issues. During the entire thread we were discussing how the game as written holds thing, and you kept bringing personal views into it.
Certain things in real life are not the way they are in the game. I was not saying you are doing it wrong, but your vision of the game while looking similar to the book version is not the same. That does not make it wrong or bad, but you can't add your own personal code to a game that contradicts with the game's way of doing something and still claim it is the same. It would like if we have the same model and make for a car, but it is a different color, but trying to say there is no difference.Monopoly is the same game with or without free parking, but if I am discussing the one with it, and you are discussing the one without it we are still not playing the exact game and until we agree to discuss the same ruleset it is hard to talk about the game.
Example:
In your games people are not tied to alignment, and alignments are not tied to action because they don't exist. That may leave leeway for an action to be judged on several merits.
In the game if you do an evil act then it is still evil, no matter why you did it.
Those are two different mindsets. Now in my games I am somewhere between the two believing that being practical is more important at times than showing some villain mercy as an example. I also understand my way of doing things is not the the game's way of doing things, where it seems you want to try to pretend there is no difference because it looks similar to the book's way of doing things, just like my way does.
You can have your holy warrior with honor do good things, but without some clear cut things what is to determine when he commits an evil(bad) action? I understand the game has grey areas, but there are times when the paladin is definitely wrong. How is your paladin detecting bad people? Can he hang out with them?
Many games can be played without that(alignment) even coming up except in very specific situation. The ability/inability to detect the absence of alignment does not really prove anything.A paladin is not just about being good. He is held to a higher standard than all the other classes. You would also have to determine how his smites interacts with bad guys or perceived bad guys.
Pathfinder(WPharolin version) is not the same as Pathfinder in many people's opinions, but since there is no measuring stick that says _____ many changes stops you from playing the same game you will say that you are still playing the same game we are, while we will believe you are playing a different enough version that your arguments don't apply with regard to alignment.
You can still hold the paladin to the EXACT same standards without two words next to his name.
As for smite and alignment spells I let them work fine against monsters. The removal of alignment for me is simply to facilitate roleplaying and to remove alignment debates, and it worked great. Monsters can still be evil, because I don't need to worry about their alignment restricting their roleplaying. As far as alignment based spells cast AT the players...well I happen to have control over that and don't really do it. If it happens I treat everyone as Neutral.
I assure you, PF without alignments (for the players) is the exact same game. There have been ZERO issues. At least in the 5 months and 8 levels I ran it.
It is similar, but not the exact same game. It seems what you have done is allowed players to not have to write it down, but kept it for monsters, which is a good idea, but that is different than a complete removal from the game. Ignoring alignment based spells is also not a real answer, and points towards a difference, which is not bad. I just wanted to point out that the game is different, even if the difference is slight.
I assure you, PF without alignments (for the players) is the exact same game. There have been ZERO issues. At least in the 5 months and 8 levels I ran it.
Kinda?
While it's true that Alignment has a minor impact on overall game mechanics, certain spells either get buffed or nerfed accordingly, and other mechanics such as aura's and DR are also affected. These all affect gameplay and character building.
In normal Pathfinder, a paladin has a much harder time dealing with a Protean or Inevitable than he does with a Devil of Demon. The former two potential encounters being reasonable challenges to throw at the party to see how they deal with unique threats that attack them from awkward angles.
In non-aligned Pathfinder, the same paladin either has a non-functional smite, or an enhanced smite that allows him to deal with all situations.
This obviously changes class balance, because restrictions that exist in the core game are no longer there.
|
|
I assure you, PF without alignments (for the players) is the exact same game. There have been ZERO issues. At least in the 5 months and 8 levels I ran it.
Kinda?
While it's true that Alignment has a minor impact on overall game mechanics, certain spells either get buffed or nerfed accordingly, and other mechanics such as aura's and DR are also affected. These all affect gameplay and character building.
In normal Pathfinder, a paladin has a much harder time dealing with a Protean or Inevitable than he does with a Devil of Demon. The former two potential encounters being reasonable challenges to throw at the party to see how they deal with unique threats that attack them from awkward angles.
In non-aligned Pathfinder, the same paladin either has a non-functional smite, or an enhanced smite that allows him to deal with all situations.
This obviously changes class balance, because restrictions that exist in the core game are no longer there.
Taking away alignment in general doesn't mean that some creatures in the game still aren't largely embodiments of evil. Smite would work on things like daemons, demons, devils, undead, etc. I'd basically just revise the ability to only work against the targets that currently get bonus +2 damage / level beyond the CHA bonus.
|
|
One of the interesting ideas that I saw in pre-3E was on a random encounter table. Keep in mind that this was before the flavor was added that all summoned creatures were outsiders, and that if killed they just returned to their home plane, etc. The random encounter actually was that the adventuring party itself was summoned as some wizard's "summon monster" target.
I assure you, PF without alignments (for the players) is the exact same game. There have been ZERO issues. At least in the 5 months and 8 levels I ran it.
Kinda?
While it's true that Alignment has a minor impact on overall game mechanics, certain spells either get buffed or nerfed accordingly, and other mechanics such as aura's and DR are also affected. These all affect gameplay and character building.
In normal Pathfinder, a paladin has a much harder time dealing with a Protean or Inevitable than he does with a Devil of Demon. The former two potential encounters being reasonable challenges to throw at the party to see how they deal with unique threats that attack them from awkward angles.
In non-aligned Pathfinder, the same paladin either has a non-functional smite, or an enhanced smite that allows him to deal with all situations.
This obviously changes class balance, because restrictions that exist in the core game are no longer there.
Please read my post again.
Paladins still have Smite Evil and thus it works EXACTLY THE SAME!Look you even quoted me, I don't have player alignments, but still have monster/NPC alignments.
It is similar, but not the exact same game. It seems what you have done is allowed players to not have to write it down, but kept it for monsters, which is a good idea, but that is different than a complete removal from the game. Ignoring alignment based spells is also not a real answer, and points towards a difference, which is not bad. I just wanted to point out that the game is different, even if the difference is slight.
Then what you're saying is that NO ONE plays Pathfinder. No two DMs adjudicate every rule in the same way, therefore no two games are exactly RAW.
The game I'm in right now is Dark Sun with PF rules. The elves don't get +2 on SR checks and Spellcraft but instead have +10 ft movement. Guess WE'RE not playing pathfinder. I don't know a lot about PFS but I know that wizards don't get scribe scroll and you can't take item creation feats, so it's not standard pathfinder and thus irrelevant to any discussion.
Either everything using the pathfinder rules set is relevant or none of it is. If you're going to claim the game is different for every tiny little difference then no one plays Pathfinder.
There are very few alignment based spells in the game, all said and done, and they're mostly cleric spells. What removing the alignment on, say, summoning spells would do is let you show the consequence of the action of summoning and how that changes the way the character is perceived, rather than some abstract tally of goodness.
The same people who say that, yes, summoning an Imp is an evil act and slowly corrupts you (even though it doesn't actually change your behavior which is what alignment is based on, because NO ONE can change your behavior, it's your character to play) will hem and haw when I saw that repeated castings of Celestial Monkeys makes me good. No matter how many times you summon a Celestial Monkey it won't make up for that orphanage you burned down or that elderly couple you tortured to death. Not even unto infinity. It's a double standard.
Certain things in real life are not the way they are in the game.
That's the point. My goal is to show that the game shouldn't behave the way that it does because imaginary morality doesn't do anything that real morality can't. Imaginary morality is just the mutant offspring of real morality. It doesn't add anything to the game.
Example:
In your games people are not tied to alignment, and alignments are not tied to action because they don't exist. That may leave leeway for an action to be judged on several merits.
That's an accurate assessment. I'll add that their are commonly held principals, which also vary depending on the local culture. Not everyone in the world cares if you summon demons. Some people might think it is justified. Other might think that slavery is never okay, even if it is a demon, and even if it is only for 6 seconds per level.
In the game if you do an evil act then it is still evil, no matter why you did it.
Which of course begs the...I mean...which of course raises the question, is there any reason for it to be that way at all? Does it add anything meaningful to the game?
You can have your holy warrior with honor do good things, but without some clear cut things what is to determine when he commits an evil(bad) action?
His beliefs do. And for paladins his beliefs are of a religious nature. Faiths have tenets and philosophic ideals that you can conform to. If you go around killing puppies, Pelor isn't going to be happy.
I understand the game has grey areas, but there are times when the paladin is definitely wrong.
Agreed. Is there a reason you think that might not be the case without alignment?
How is your paladin detecting bad people?
He isn't. The player must decide for himself whether or not someone is evil. He may be wrong.
Can he hang out with them?
Depends greatly on the situation and on his god. If he is being deceived or if he just doesn't know, then sure. If the player feels justified in teaming up with the bad guy in order to save lots of lives, then...maybe, depending on his religion. One religion might believe that working with a morally bankrupt person corrupts your soul. Another religion might believe that when lives are at stake, personal differences should be put aside (but will turn his attention to the offender when the rescue operation has been completed). Yet another might believe that there is no evil that is beyond redemption and would welcome the assistance. So largely, it is handled on a case by case basis.
Please read my post again.
Paladins still have Smite Evil and thus it works EXACTLY THE SAME!
Look you even quoted me, I don't have player alignments, but still have monster/NPC alignments.
My bad, didn't realize that it was only for players.
If that's the case then yeah, nothing much changes.
Also helps decrease potential conflict betweens players, which is alwasy a plus.
Book reference please?And why isn't it casting spells with an [alignment] descriptor is an act of that alignment please?
Thanks,
James
I believe it's somewhere in the third or second page of this thread that various James Jacobs quotes had that statement.
I doesn't however say that casting of other alignments are neutral.
|
Casting spells with the [evil] descriptor is an evil action in Golarion.Book reference please?
And why isn't it casting spells with an [alignment] descriptor is an act of that alignment please?
Thanks,
James
Okay. That works, too. Casting spells with the [good] descriptor is a good action... in Golarion. I get this from James Jacobs, and specifically apply it to the Golarion setting because... well, the people at Paizo created the setting.
Now, RAW in the books, etc., no, you don't have to worry about that, and I never said that was the case. All I said was that, in the specific campaign setting that is Golarion, casting alignment keyword spells is considered an action of that alignment.
Now, I could go on and on about my views on subjective and objective morality, but really, it doesn't matter. The makers of Golarion, the campaign setting many of us play in, have said [insert above statement here]. And it was said specifically in relation to Golarion, which is really all you need to know. Outside of the setting, treatment of the alignment system in the core rules is fair game because it's not clearly defined. But it's a setting treatment, not a rules treatment.
Also, I think it's odd that people keep lumping "summoning a demon" and "saving an orphanage" into the same action, "summoning a demon to save an orphanage", and trying to call the two-part statement a single action. It's two separate actions: Summoning the demon is evil, and saving the orphanage is good. If a neutral character did this, I'd probably, as a DM, push them closer to the good side because I see saving the orphanage as being "more good" than summoning the devil is "evil." You can do stuff like that. It's okay.
Thanks james. You put it much better than I ever could and in a noninflammatory matter.
I think removing alignment from a game is a neat idea, I wouldn't use it personally, but would try it in someone elses game.
I also think, having people corrupted by casting spells with "evil" descriptors is a great idea. Once again, not gonna use it for my particular setting (Golarion) but probably will bake it into a new world.
Greg
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well one... they might ignore offenses in YOUR game or in Eberron, but just because it's not spelled out in the rulebook doesn't mean that clerics can't be stripped of thier powers if they stray too far.
The thing is, what constitutes an "offense" for a paladin can, for other classes, constitute other things. Like decent tactics. :P
They should publish a book on ...
- Roleplaying issues frequently encountered.
- Alignment clarifications and applications.
- Tricks and tips to different classes, such as paladin codes,
- Discussing morality for a Golarion campaign.
- And much, much more.
They should publish a book on ...
- Roleplaying issues frequently encountered.
- Alignment clarifications and applications.
- Tricks and tips to different classes, such as paladin codes,
- Discussing morality for a Golarion campaign.
- And much, much more.
- Roleplaying issues frequently encountered.. I suppose those are alignment issues ?
- I do not think they should, alignment is not something people agree on and forcing alignment rules on people seems a bad idea.
- tricks and tips to paladin codes, the code is pretty straightforward, the only thing people disagree on really is alignment or the code as written.
- I do not think morality for a golarion campaign is all that nebulous, it is mostly decided by the religions in the campaign, otherwise it is pretty classic D&D, decided by GM
* I do not really agree clerics should be held to higher standards than paladins, misguided clerics are quite common in fiction but seemingly unaffected in their standing, thematically I like them more as regents of their God in his absence.
Paladins I rather see as rare individuals that are chosen and guided by their God and as such are more closely watched, admitedly I do not like the paladin class much, I'd rather have some kind of template or PrC reflecting it, or even archetypes for the various classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
..
...
....
.....
I saved the little ones but I had to summon an evil in order to do so..
No worries Brian, the day is saved. Well done.
I saved the little ones and I *didn't* have to summon an evil in order to do so..
Well done Ralphy, once again you have proven yourself to be smarter/more creative/more astute/a better dancer and certainly sexier than Brian.
I removed a post that sniped at real-world politic, and the replies that followed.
What you have, and all you have is one of the designers speaking how they run things.
The way they run things has ramifications outside of their opinions alone.
Because they basically run and create the Golarion setting, sanctioned events and PFS more or less run by their rules, so anyone playing in those kinds of events will have to contend with rulings handed out by Paizo Staff.
Now, when it comes to home games, Rule Zero always applies.
|
I only just learned myself and had to pass it on. :)And I appreciate it, really. I hate being wrong >.>
It is a phrase that is very rarely used correctly.
It ("begging the question") covers a situation for which most people nowadays don't seem to need a phrase.
It is used in a situation where lots of people seem to need a phrase, but there isn't one.
I think the meaning of the phrase should change :)