Sacred Cows of D&D and Pathfinder

[Jessica Price]

TOZ wrote:

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

I guess we could add arguing about alignment as a sacred cow.

An excellent segue back on topic! Ten points!

Bravo. :-)

[kmal2t]

@Terquem: I've made this argument before. We've had this argument from Pre-Socrates to today in many differnet ways with different very persuasive arguments. I guess D&D figured it out with 9 categories.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

{EDIT @ kmal2t} Not so much. Alignment is not subjectve. That is to say that justifications do not change what an act is. Actually neither does the outcome, for that matter. If two evil murdering brutal armies go to war and masacre each other (leaving the world without that much more evil), its still an evil act to murder and cause as much pain as possible.

{EDIT - inreference to 3E/PF game only, not talking RL here}

It is subjective because what "good" "evil" lawful" and "chaotic" are ARE subjective.

Two "evil" "murdering" "brutal" army uses 3 normative and subjective qualifiers that change depending on who's perspective it is. And some may say that scenario is NOT evil because the ends justify the means and the intent doesn't matter as long as the outcome results well.

Again I suggest people read some of the great philosophers out there to get a fresh perspective on morality.

[Steve Geddes]

kmal2t wrote:

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

{EDIT @ kmal2t} Not so much. Alignment is not subjectve. That is to say that justifications do not change what an act is. Actually neither does the outcome, for that matter. If two evil murdering brutal armies go to war and masacre each other (leaving the world without that much more evil), its still an evil act to murder and cause as much pain as possible.

{EDIT - inreference to 3E/PF game only, not talking RL here}

It is subjective because what "good" "evil" lawful" and "chaotic" are ARE subjective.

Two "evil" "murdering" "brutal" army uses 3 normative and subjective qualifiers that change depending on who's perspective it is. And some may say that scenario is NOT evil because the ends justify the means and the intent doesn't matter as long as the outcome results well.

Again I suggest people read some of the great philosophers out there to get a fresh perspective on morality.

Are you talking RL or Pathfinder though?

.
In pathfinder good and evil are objective things (you can detect them and protect from them). The problem is that the terms 'good' and 'evil' are being used to represent different things in the game than they refer to in real life.

[Laurefindel]

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

I have three questions about Sacred Cows in D&D/Pathfinder:

What are the Sacred Cows (elements of the game that some feel should not be changed)?

What Sacred Cows are "good" and/or under what conditions do Sacred Cows contribute to the game?

What Sacred Cows do not contribute to the game?

Races and Classes (and the fact that a character is mostly defined by the the sum of these two choices) are sacred cows. I'm not going to say whether these are good or bad as they are at the core of the game.

Hit points and spells as "effect packages" are two others. Hit points annoy me the most. Actually, it isn't the hit point concept per se that annoys me, but the implication that hit points must be "healed" for your character to rejuvenate. Fortunately, viewed from that perspective, it is much easier to houserule "healing" than to change hit points themselves.

Spells-as-package used to annoy me (you can cast a ball of fire but can't light-up your cigar?), as with other elements of Vancian casting (or semi-vancian from 3rd ed). With years, I've come to appreciate Vancian magic as a good narrative tool and a good example of fluff adapted to game mechanics. As far as I'm concerned, it's a good sacred cow that gives something different from other games.

Alignment is a sacred cow that I dislike, but one that can so easily be withdrawn for the game that I don't bother much about it.

[Aelryinth]

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Wait, what??? Im sorry, Aelrynth, but I really think you are heavily mixing up the alignments with that one, even in a perception from others. That isnt to say that a person of any of those alignments would not ever act in such a way, but it does seem very odd and also much more along the lines of special circumstances influencing their choice.

Wouldnt LG/LN be mostly for it regardless of what people generally wanted if they felt like it would be better and safer for everyone? While CG would pretty much be absolutely against it even if they felt it might do some good, that probably isnt moe important to them than people's freedom? And wouldnt NG be the one that would weigh both sides, particularly in this case if the amount of safety was more important than if it was strictly legal or more important than people's sense of trusting their leaders with their rights?

Spoiler:

The thing with LG and LN is "Are individual rights enshrined in the law?"

If they are, then it doesn't matter...they aren't going to break the law to protect people if it violates people's rights. In other words, individualism/liberty, CG wunderboi, got put into LAW. Huzzah for NG compromise and turning the state against itself!

In a true LN state, there are no individual rights (see, China). So, whatever the government wants to do, gets done. This never becomes an issue. Only Chaotic terrorist anti-social deviant criminal foreign devil spying fanatic insurrectionist propagandists would possibly have a reason to protest against such a useful tool!

And yes, I was very deliberately crossing the alignments, because it showcases perceptions perfectly.

A CG ruler would have no trouble doing this, because protecting his people is important, and this doesn't hurt anyone in his view.

The CG RULED consider this a massive invasion of privacy and their rights, and howl against it, even if they personally take no 'harm' from it. The potential for harm is enough to justify their reaction.

Remember, CG is about the individual, not the state. If an individual doesn't feel he needs the gov't looking at his emails, then the gov't shouldn't do it. The fact the gov't is looking at other people's is their problem...the problem is that they are looking at MINE.

==Aelryinth

[kmal2t]

To move this discussion forward in a meaningful way, let everyone see what Pathfinder's definition (or I guess RAW) are for what good and evil are:

PRD wrote:

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.

There is so much leeway and things open to interpretation here that there still is no "standard" for good and evil. If we were to take this pretty literally then

[Steve Geddes]

kmal2t wrote:

To move this discussion forward in a meaningful way, let everyone see what Pathfinder's definition (or I guess RAW) are for what good and evil are:

PRD wrote:

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.

There is so much leeway and things open to interpretation here that there still is no "standard" for good and evil. If we were to take this pretty literally then

The fact we're unable to distinguish between two things doesnt imply they are identical.

.
I agree with you that the rules dont allow us to answer the question 'is this act evil/good?' without resorting to human judgement (typically provided by the DM). Within the world of D&D though, they are real, tangible "things". The fifteenth level cleric of the demonic cult is evil if that's on his statblock (and he'll detect as such) - nobody's opinion changes that.

If alignment (in game) isnt objective, how does detect evil work? Do you think it detects what the caster thinks is evil?

[kmal2t]

It's already been mentioned that part of the reason alignment is still around is how integrated it is into the game with things like (as you mentioned) detect evil, protection from evil etc. etc.

And your example above is part of what I would consider the problem. Reducing everything into white hat black hat. How dull and one-dimensional..but then again D&D was never originally intended to be that complex. It was like Mario..just go kill the bad guys and save the princess.

[Steve Geddes]

Maybe we dont disagree. I think alignment is a silly (ie not-at-all-realistic) thing.

My view on alignment 'debates' though is that it's purely a case of people taking the word "good" in the rules and thinking it refers to the same thing as "good" in the world. (It's why I actually prefer the old school focus on the law-chaos axis. People have much less invested in what those mean and are, in my experience, happier to just shrug and accept it as a gameworld concept with no realworld analog).

[kmal2t]

Ordinarily it would be something you could ignore. Unfortunately it leads to arguments with other players and DMs because its a rule and its how other people see this rule to force their morality on you. This affects the most important thing of the game (as a player) and that's to say who your character is and what he is going to do.

i.e. "You can't execute that goblin. You're lawful good and its against your alignment" Yes. I'm lawful, so have the right to kill this goblin. I'm good in that I'm executing him in the name of my god so he can't hurt others. But then another player wants to tell you "that isn't lawful good" or worse, the DM tells you your putting your alignment on the line for doing that.

or also bad: "I can't do that, I'm lawful good" It reduces the game into a simplistic game where you might as well be rescuing girls on train tracks from guys with creepy mustaches.

[TOZ]

kmal2t wrote:

Yes. I'm lawful, so have the right to kill this goblin.

LAWL.

[kmal2t]

If players didn't have the right to administer first hand justice, half the game would be them running off to report bandits or turning in enemies to the local guard. How many times are people "patrons to the local baron" or some other line where their authority comes from a local authority? Exactly.

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

There have been threads about times when detect evil will detect evil inaccurately- a demon or devil that has renounced evil but is still an outsider with the evil subtype, a neutral cleric of an evil god who channels negative energy, etc. I argue that the nine alignments work best in the context of adventurers going into a dungeon to kill things. I also argue that alignment is easy to disagree on, we approach the topic of "alignment in context of dungeon crawl" where it is easiest to make sense of alignment from different perspectives. Basically, I view alignment as existing in its ideal in the context of a dungeon crawl. We translate part of our real world perspective to an in-game perspective, and must approach the alignment ideal of adventurers on a dungeon crawl from that in-game perspective. That in-game perspective, which is influenced by the player's real world perspective, will vary. We are applying a real world take on morality to an ideal of alignment, but there is an intermediate step of translating that real world take to an in-game perspective.

To sum it up, alignment works best in the context of a dungeon crawl. The lawful good alignment, and especially the paladin's code, work best in a dungeon crawl. As the game has been modified and expanded over the years alignment has been moved from the dungeon crawl to encounters that are much more complex, and the nine alignments require interpretation and judgement calls as to how they apply. Those judgement calls and interpretations vary. Consider Game of Thrones, and how PF alignments would apply. Eddard Stark would be LG in my estimation, and he holds to a standard of conduct similar to a paladin's code. He could have prevented a lot of evil if he had a little moral flexibility. Alignment doesn't work very well for complex shades of grey. Eddard does not deviate from his code, regardless of the consequences. Does holding to a high standard, even if that course of action causes a lot of suffering to innocents, count as good? If Eddard has seized the throne for himself he could have done good and prevented harm to innocents, how would that be categorized in the alignment system? Alignment works in a dungeon crawl with a Tolkien-esque world outside the dungeon. It requires judgement calls in fantasy along the lines of A Song of Ice and Fire, and in real world inspired situations.

Which is why alignment is a sacred cow. It ties the game to its origins, for good and for bad. I'd like to see the core book just the way it is, but with a sourcebook providing alternates to most/all of the sacred cows. Palladium has an alignment system that is easier to use and understand, something along those lines would be a nice variant rule. I love Vancian casting, but I think the game would benefit from a spell point based alternate system. This thread has had a discussion on using attack roles to add bonuses to damage, I wouldn't mind seeing iterative attacks go away and be replaced by a system along those lines.

Of course, providing alternate rules to sacred cows would make for a lot of work if a group implements the alternate rules for combat or magic. But different groups feel differently about the sacred cows, it would be worth the work for some groups to implement alternate rules.

We've had a great discussion on sacred cows, hopefully we can continue to make this a thread on sacred cows and not a locked alignment thread. I enjoy the alignment discussion, but it's worth having a separate thread to discuss alignment. Like I said, applying alignment to anything that is not a dungeon crawl requires interpretation, and those interpretations vary.

[TOZ]

kmal2t wrote:

If players didn't have the right to administer first hand justice, half the game would be them running off to report bandits or turning in enemies to the local guard. How many times are people "patrons to the local baron" or some other line where their authority comes from a local authority? Exactly.

Never, in my experience.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post and the replies. Keep personal insults out of the conversation.

[3.5 Loyalist]

AC

There are better, more exciting alternatives out there, with less crunch.

[3.5 Loyalist]

TOZ wrote:

kmal2t wrote:

Yes. I'm lawful, so have the right to kill this goblin.

LAWL.

LAWL-ful.

[3.5 Loyalist]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe we dont disagree. I think alignment is a silly (ie not-at-all-realistic) thing.

My view on alignment 'debates' though is that it's purely a case of people taking the word "good" in the rules and thinking it refers to the same thing as "good" in the world. (It's why I actually prefer the old school focus on the law-chaos axis. People have much less invested in what those mean and are, in my experience, happier to just shrug and accept it as a gameworld concept with no realworld analog).

While it is reductionist, I have run into more than a few non gamers that were fiercely adhering to a dnd alignment. The two neutrals (true neutral and typical neutral) are also quite philosophical or normal, and you can find people of that bent (or without bent, as the case may be).

[3.5 Loyalist]

Steve Geddes wrote:

kmal2t wrote:

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

{EDIT @ kmal2t} Not so much. Alignment is not subjectve. That is to say that justifications do not change what an act is. Actually neither does the outcome, for that matter. If two evil murdering brutal armies go to war and masacre each other (leaving the world without that much more evil), its still an evil act to murder and cause as much pain as possible.

{EDIT - inreference to 3E/PF game only, not talking RL here}

It is subjective because what "good" "evil" lawful" and "chaotic" are ARE subjective.

Two "evil" "murdering" "brutal" army uses 3 normative and subjective qualifiers that change depending on who's perspective it is. And some may say that scenario is NOT evil because the ends justify the means and the intent doesn't matter as long as the outcome results well.

Again I suggest people read some of the great philosophers out there to get a fresh perspective on morality.

Are you talking RL or Pathfinder though?

.
In pathfinder good and evil are objective things (you can detect them and protect from them). The problem is that the terms 'good' and 'evil' are being used to represent different things in the game than they refer to in real life.

Yeah, and all the defence and relativism of today can not matter at all in game, unless the dm wants to punish players and bring it in. Then we must think of the kobolds *sigh*.

[Terquem]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe we dont disagree. I think alignment is a silly (ie not-at-all-realistic) thing.

My view on alignment 'debates' though is that it's purely a case of people taking the word "good" in the rules and thinking it refers to the same thing as "good" in the world. (It's why I actually prefer the old school focus on the law-chaos axis. People have much less invested in what those mean and are, in my experience, happier to just shrug and accept it as a gameworld concept with no realworld analog).

While it is reductionist, I have run into more than a few non gamers that were fiercely adhering to a dnd alignment. The two neutrals (true neutral and typical neutral) are also quite philosophical or normal, and you can find people of that bent (or without bent, as the case may be).

Wow, that sounds interesting. Say, how do I "Get Bent"? I mean in, wait,um, I mean, ah poop.

[kmal2t]

If alignment was just fluff, I'd still roll my eyes, but I could ignore it. Its the fact that it's crunch and how people enforce it that makes it a big problem. Flawed heroes that are complex characters and often live in a gray area (like Vic Mackey from the Shield) don't really work because people start b****ing about what alignment is.

Lancelot is a white knight in shining armor. "Dude you can't have sex with Guinevere, you're a lawful good paladin. Not allowed"

Personally, I like how oWoD did it. They had demeanors and archtypes to give you ideas and (in Vampire) there was the humanity system that was more or less based on Judeo-Christian ideas..but there were also other paths you could follow based on different belief sets.

[Alzrius]

kmal2t wrote:

If alignment was just fluff, I'd still roll my eyes, but I could ignore it. Its the fact that it's crunch and how people enforce it that makes it a big problem.

It's only crunch if you don't remove it.

kmal2t" wrote:

Lancelot is a white knight in shining armor. "Dude you can't have sex with Guinevere, you're a lawful good paladin. Not allowed"

Well, yeah. She was another man's wife, after all. Not to mention that that man was King Arthur, whom Lancelot was supposed to be faithfully serving.

[Rynjin]

Wasn't he supposed to faithfully serve the queen too?

*Suggestive eyebrow wiggle*

[Kirth Gersen]

I seem to recall that he was thereafter stricken by God, lost his memory, and lived as a mad beast in the forest after Galahad was born.

And there's room for that in D&D/PF -- but not if it's imposed by the DM. Imagine instead: "Guys, I'll be working offshore for the next month, so I won't be able to make any of the sessions. Instead of my paladin Launcelot randomly disappearing, I'm going to say that now he is TOTALLY going to do that flirtatious queen -- you guys have been teasing me about it for weeks, and here it comes! And then of course he falls and go lives in the woods or something. When I get back, if you guys want to re-integrate him, we'll need to work out an atonement or something. 'Til then, I have an appointment with Her Majesty."

[kmal2t]

Its an integral part of an interesting story. Stories that don't have interesting things like that happen might as well be a season of a kids show like G.I. Joe.

[kmal2t]

They were in love if I remember, and for all you know Arthur was a d**k to her.

[Kirth Gersen]

kmal2t wrote:

for all you know Arthur was a d**k to her.

Irrelevant -- if you can commit chaotic acts freely by rationalizing based on the behavior of third parties, that's really not much of a code! Which is fine if everyone's on board with that, but not so much if they're stuck on "paladin" as being a paragon of LG righteousness.

["Devil's Advocate"]

As a partial aside from alignments, sort of, I wouldn't mind seeing a WoD (not nWoD though) style alignment, or even one similar to KotOR, where the two extremes offered bonuses and made certain powers harder while others easier to use.

By doing this, it would really remove the incentive to be neutral, other than that you don't suffer from using any powers, and really focus on altruistic vs selfish, and leave your affinity for or against order, discipline, civilization, and the like as either in game affiliations (to organizations) or as character personality and background. No arguments on if you are Lawful or not, because it wouldn't have any game affects other than maybe you tend to agree with and work well for certain NPC/setting groups and not get along so well with others. You morality would not really be something the player had any control over other than the sorts of actions they actually performed, (or at least attempted to), and there wouldn't be any dramatic shifts, but rather a slow fall, or even slower rise.

Thoughts?

Also, has anyone checked out the new nWoD morality that just came out. It's free at DRIVETHRU RPG: The GMC

I still like the originals better, but it puts a very different look into it, more akin to PTSD than the more evil you are the crazier you might be.

[kmal2t]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

kmal2t wrote:

for all you know Arthur was a d**k to her.

Irrelevant -- if you can commit chaotic acts freely by rationalizing based on the behavior of third parties, that's really not much of a code! Which is fine if everyone's on board with that, but not so much if they're stuck on "paladin" as being a paragon of LG righteousness.

It is NOT irrelevant because people in real life don't live so rigidly by their principles that there aren't times they need bending or breaking.

I'll give the classic example and modify it to alignment.

A draw bridge operator is "lawful good". He obeys the law and loves his family and blah blah. The law is explicitly clear that the bridge is NEVER to be raised before sunset. One day at noon he sees a marauding army at the top of the hill coming and about to invade the city. If he doesn't raise the bridge right now the whole city will be lost even though the law says he must leave it down. Should he obey the law and his "code" and leave it down? Or raise it save everyone and put it up? Would this one act now make it "chaotic good" because he wasn't so stringent that in the real world he actually had to have some grey area and modify things to exceptions? Is he lawful evil (or lawful neutral) now for leaving it down to obey the law so everyone died?

[Kirth Gersen]

Since when is Arthurian legend real life? It's specifically modeled after an absurd code of chivalry that no one actually followed.

The fact that no one actually followed it makes me sort of ignore it in my games, but that said, most other groups cling to it the way rednecks cling to their guns. I'm not them; I don't even include alignment in my home game.

[kmal2t]

Exactly. People didn't follow it IN the actual story. It would have been boring if Arthur and the rest were just so pure and wholesome and never forgot to wash their hands before supper etc.

Alignment is silly for another major reason (indicated in the example above) because depending on the issue and the situation REAL people will shift from alignment to alignment. If people want to play Saturday morning cartoon characters that are delicately put into scenarios that enable them to stay within one framework, go for it. In 2013 I don't see why you would want to though.

[TOZ]

Fun.

[Terquem]

Wait, are you dissing my Saturday Morning Cartoons? Man, there are, *sniff*, just, *sniff*, dude, there are just some *sniff* lines you don't cross, man.

[kmal2t]

Look, I liked Saturday Morning cartoons as well. Every morning at 10 A.M. on Fox was X-Men time (some of you know exactly what I'm talking about)...but as adults, the heroes in the movies we watch don't have these type of Dudley Do-Right personas. Iron Man? Womanizing, self-absorbed tycoon. Batman? Beats the crap out of people and drops them off rooftops. X-men? Wolverine is a total d**k half the time.

The only people who have the luxury of being so rigid and preaching in their principles are people that are INVINCIBLE like Superman. And honestly..how many times can you watch that putz get taken down by kryptonite and lock people up (who get out a week later) before you're like...dude just have a gun on you and shoot someone if they come near you with that rock. (btw I haven't seen the new one yet)

[Rynjin]

High-Five for X-Men time on ABC Family.

Also, I've said it before and it still rings true: Robert Downey Jr. IS Tony Stark. Maybe an alternate reality version without the genius, but still.

[Steve Geddes]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe we dont disagree. I think alignment is a silly (ie not-at-all-realistic) thing.

My view on alignment 'debates' though is that it's purely a case of people taking the word "good" in the rules and thinking it refers to the same thing as "good" in the world. (It's why I actually prefer the old school focus on the law-chaos axis. People have much less invested in what those mean and are, in my experience, happier to just shrug and accept it as a gameworld concept with no realworld analog).

While it is reductionist, I have run into more than a few non gamers that were fiercely adhering to a dnd alignment. The two neutrals (true neutral and typical neutral) are also quite philosophical or normal, and you can find people of that bent (or without bent, as the case may be).

That doesn't change the fact that in the game a place or inanimate object can be evil. That's a nonsensical use of the real world, moral term. It's the same word meaning two different things (whether there's overlap or not).

[kmal2t]

Rynjin wrote:

High-Five for X-Men time on ABC Family.

Also, I've said it before and it still rings true: Robert Downey Jr. IS Tony Stark. Maybe an alternate reality version without the genius, but still.

lol what? Not X-Men the new generation or whatever that new crap was. I'm talking about the one that was on Fox years ago.

THIS ONE Not this one and the other ones that came later with that outsourced crappy animation.

[Aelryinth]

One of the fun things about alignment in the D&D game is the fact it is NOT subjective.

Good defines itself. People don't get to define it.

So, yes, you can have two marauding armies who tear up the land, kill one another's peoples, and one can be NG and one NE, and both can consider the other side despicable enemies only worth the killing.

But one side will be NG regardless of what the other side believes.

I'm not sure how well it will load, but here's a very good view on subjective alignments.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Al l-About-Alignment

The gist of it is simple...what is 'good' to someone who is LE is obedience, loyalty, strict caste systems, control over your lessers, and absolute unity against outsiders. What is 'evil' to the LE is people rising above their station, liberty, freedom, rebellion against the 'natural order', and the like.

Good, on the other hand, favors the latter, because Good defines itself, it doesn't care what the LE guy thinks is 'good'.

People who like grey areas love the fact that an action can be evil to one person and good to another. The Alignment system doesn't allow that kind of viewpoint...there are Good actions, Evil actions, and the viewpoint of little mortals and their self-justification for their actions really doesn't mean squat.

And I like that, because it is fantastic...it is totally and utterly different then the real world, probably THE most fantastic thing about a fantasy D&D world. Your moral choices actually have more impact on the setting then just what you do...why you do it and how you do it become vitally important to you and the very destiny of your soul!

And so I love the alignment system. A fantasy world with an alignment is not the modern world reskinned with fireballs and fly spells replacing machine guns and jetpacks. It has something technology just doesn't have.

==Aelryinth

[Laithoron]

I wonder if it would be more useful to describe alignment along axes other than Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos. Perhaps Altruistic vs Egoistic and Authoritarian vs Autonomous would be more meaningful outside of dungeons and divinities...

[MrSin]

Aelryinth wrote:

One of the fun things about alignment in the D&D game is the fact it is NOT subjective.

I'd say that's an opinion and that most of your statement doesn't reflect the games actual values, but of your own.

[kmal2t]

Again good does not define itself in D&D or anywhere else. They give a description that could be interpreted 100 different ways depending on particular situations. I believe it said good people don't kill people. Well there goes 75% of adventures since you can't just invade people's homes in dungeons and kill on sight.

[Jessica Price]

MrSin wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

One of the fun things about alignment in the D&D game is the fact it is NOT subjective.

I'd say that's an opinion and that most of your statement doesn't reflect the games actual values, but of your own.

I think what he means is that there are spells in the game that will tell you, non-subjectively, a character's alignment. There are also spells that the rules text labels as good or evil, spells that only -- objectively -- affect good/evil/neutral/lawful/chaotic creatures, and so on.

While what *constitutes* good or evil might be subjective according to how a GM rules, there are creatures and magical effects that are objectively good or evil according to magical means of determining these things.

[TOZ]

kmal2t wrote:

Again good does not define itself in D&D or anywhere else.

Indeed. The DM defines it for his campaign.

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

Another sacred cow for the list- the 3E skills. The skills are a huge improvement over 2E, but could be improved. There was thread a few months ago about skill overlap. There can be a lot of overlap between knowledge, craft, and profession. PF improved skills (a lot) over 3E, but I think they could be further improved. Physical skills could be based on CMB (like use rope). The overlap between craft, knowledge, and profession could be improved.