I admit I find it kind of amusing where it's perfectly okay to have a horrible Lower Planar home of monsters and evil incarnate, but the idea of an opposite place that actually adheres to HIGH moral standards is a horribly bad idea.
Erm, there is a good plane in pathfinder. Several actually. Heaven, the lawful good plane of Archons. Nirvana, the neutral good home of agathonians and angel. And finally the Elysium, Chaotic Good home of Azata.
Oddly enough deities aren't locked into living in planes of their own alignment. Calistria for instance has a domain in the Elysium, rather than the Mealstrom(CN), Boneyard(N), or Abyss(CE).
-As long as you are level 5 or lower, and not a cleric, and cultist doesn't radiate evil. And in a world with divine magic evil clerics certainly WOULD give off evil vibes.
-In addition, what about a town where most people ARE lawful evil, how would you find the bad guy. I consider the CCP to be lawful evil, wouldn't really help me find the corrupt judge.
"I am shocked, shocked to find an evil person in a town that allows gambling!"
"Your winnings, sir"
They have a place in PF where this is true. As a matter of fact, it's a whole country.
And obviously enough, the 'bad' people in this nation are the ones that worship demons, not devils.
Welcome to Cheliax! Where 'good' is a silly thing that has been properly subsumed by 'lawful'. Civilization and adhering to the rigid social order is SO much more important then being moral, after all.
==Aelryinth
I remember I was still new to pathfinder, and I was playing an LG spellcaster in Korvosa. We got some power, juice, influence, and then I looked at the map and remarked, "wait, our southern neighbour is full of evil cultists. We should go kill them."
Could have been a whole other campaign.
The problem is, those classes are fun except for that one tiny detail.
Why should I have to restrict myself from playing a fun class just because the alignment system is bugf#@% stupid?
Now, there are some classes that restrain this. Potato, pohtahtoh. Don't like the restrictions, don't play the class.
So its okay to have a constantly moving alignment, but if you don't like restrictions just don't play a class with one? That's pretty mean I think. Wouldn't it make more sense to just free things up so people can play what they want to play?
I admit I find it kind of amusing where it's perfectly okay to have a horrible Lower Planar home of monsters and evil incarnate, but the idea of an opposite place that actually adheres to HIGH moral standards is a horribly bad idea.
If I wanted that kind of crapsack world, I'd go play Warhammer, because that's basically what you have. You're either evil/chaotic, or you're not, and if you're not, it doesn't really matter what kind of 'not' you are.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, don't forget the, you are not of the forces of evil, but you are still kind of an evil ****. Your people? They are dic*s too.
Making people work within the rules is a great deal of the fun of the game. You want this type of fun, these are the additional rules you have to work within.
No different then not getting full BAB or full casting, really. Just a different limitation to overcome.
Your argument is about as valid as someone protesting that his fighter doesn't get spellcasting. It's another restriction he has to work around. The fact it isn't mechanically as defined is no different.
==Aelryinth
The problem is, those classes are fun except for that one tiny detail.
Why should I have to restrict myself from playing a fun class just because the alignment system is bugf$#! stupid?
Play a hero, and you'll be fine playing a lawful good hero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, don't forget the, you are not of the forces of evil, but you are still kind of an evil ****. Your people? They are dic*s too.I admit I find it kind of amusing where it's perfectly okay to have a horrible Lower Planar home of monsters and evil incarnate, but the idea of an opposite place that actually adheres to HIGH moral standards is a horribly bad idea.
If I wanted that kind of crapsack world, I'd go play Warhammer, because that's basically what you have. You're either evil/chaotic, or you're not, and if you're not, it doesn't really matter what kind of 'not' you are.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, the alignment system in Warhammer is: Chaotic (horribly, awful bad, the main bad guys of the setting), Evil (sinister and self-serving), Neutral (just about everyone, uncaring unless personally harmed for the most part), Good (simpering woobies) and Lawful (rigidly amoral unbending total a$~%!!+s).
The only people who don't have the excuse to be totally arsehats at the drop of the Hat are Good people, who are flower-headed peaceniks in every example I've seen. Eesh.
==Aelryinth
Making people work within the rules is a great deal of the fun of the game. You want this type of fun, these are the additional rules you have to work within.
No different then not getting full BAB or full casting, really. Just a different limitation to overcome.
Your argument is about as valid as someone protesting that his fighter doesn't get spellcasting. It's another restriction he has to work around. The fact it isn't mechanically as defined is no different.
Except its not what you say it is. Its not part of the fun for everyone, and its far easier to remove than BAB or Full casting.
Telling people not to play if they aren't doing it your way is not the best way to handle things.
Play a hero, and you'll be fine playing a lawful good hero.The problem is, those classes are fun except for that one tiny detail.
Why should I have to restrict myself from playing a fun class just because the alignment system is bugf$#! stupid?
I don't like LG. At all.
NG? Cool. CG? Great.
LG? I could care less if it existed or not.
Along with True Neutral. Pick a side, hippy!
Yeah, don't forget the, you are not of the forces of evil, but you are still kind of an evil ****. Your people? They are dic*s too.I admit I find it kind of amusing where it's perfectly okay to have a horrible Lower Planar home of monsters and evil incarnate, but the idea of an opposite place that actually adheres to HIGH moral standards is a horribly bad idea.
If I wanted that kind of crapsack world, I'd go play Warhammer, because that's basically what you have. You're either evil/chaotic, or you're not, and if you're not, it doesn't really matter what kind of 'not' you are.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, the alignment system in Warhammer is: Chaotic (horribly, awful bad, the main bad guys of the setting), Evil (sinister and self-serving), Neutral (just about everyone, uncaring unless personally harmed for the most part), Good (simpering woobies) and Lawful (rigidly amoral unbending total a!+*@#*s).
The only people who don't have the excuse to be totally arsehats at the drop of the Hat are Good people, who are flower-headed peaceniks in every example I've seen. Eesh.
==Aelryinth
Needs more Linirea from Kingdom Rush. Somewhat lawful kingdom with barbaric elements, fun loving, devious, multi-cultural and a bit crazy.
I also like the fact that someone posted an example of a Lawful type hunting down a bad man and criminal, and asking WHY he wouldn't just kill the murderer and save the law the trouble.
There are so many movies and stories about lawman that this should not even be a question. I think the best is 'Hang 'em High' with our Man Clint Eastwood.
In short form, vigilantes did indeed decide to save the law the trouble, and hung CLint for a murder he did not commit. He was saved, and was made a deputy, to go after the men who tried to murder him. And he caught the ones who did the original murder, and despite the hardship, brought them in to be hung, even though he believed two of them were innocent, and was forced to watch them die.
Also, you're basically asking why Superman doesn't pop Lex's head like a grape, and Batman doesn't take out all his foes for good. I think the question kind of answers itself, there.
==Aelryinth
I am reminded of a shocking moment in Red Dead redemption. Sheriff is transporting two criminals. They try to get away, he shoots one, I chose for my character to hunt down the other one (sheriff was old and couldn't run far).
Capture the crim, tie him up, put him on horse take him back. He pleads to be let go. Can't offer much, but he still pleads.
Drop him off for the sheriff, he is still tied up. Sheriff seems a bit tired (he seems to be 50) but is thankful. "Thanks for all your help" he says in his old man voice, as he mid-sentence, executes the hog-tied criminal with a loud shot to the back of the crim's head.
:O
:O
He doffs his hat.
My character backs away slowly.
I too don't like signatures.
I know Superman occasionally kills. And yeah, I saw the movie.
THe fact that Supes couldn't figure out another way to stop Zod other then breaking his neck means you have horribly bad writers, not that it's a true reflection of the spirit of Superman.
Here's a counter-example:
http://www.animeflavor.com/node/42101
which shows why Superman doesn't kill. Because he doesn't NEED to kill. Heck, all he had to do was poke Zod in the eyes!...
Seriously, Lex Luthor has popped whole worlds, murdered people with his bare hands, ordered tons of others murdered, and Supes still doesn't kill him.
Batman's foes are some of the most twisted murderers in comics. He still doesn't disappear them, although he'd save a lot of lives if they did. Heck, there was a DC alternate world where he DID go over the edge, after the Joker killed Jason Todd, and he went around and killed every supervillain in the DC universe, starting with the Joker. The heroes mostly retired, since there wasn't anyone left to fight.
All good examples because they showcase how startling and different it is when Supes and Bats do decide to cross the line.
And wasn't there a couple Justice League episodes with the Justice Lords where they showcased that whole thing, too?
======
And I sign my name so people don't have to look at the top of the post to see who they are reading. I, uh, have a habit of making long posts. So, it's habit, now.
No, I don't stick gifs in my sigs. :)
==+Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what you're saying is, all the superheroes needing to retire because crime is down and they have nothing to do is a bad thing...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was probably a good thing right up until a threat bigger then individual Supervillains came up, and the relatively inexperienced and unbattle-tested 'retired' heroes were wiped out along with the planet Earth.
:0
==Aelryinth
Spoiler:THe fact that Supes couldn't figure out another way to stop Zod other then breaking his neck means you have horribly bad writers, not that it's a true reflection of the spirit of Superman.
Its bad writing? That's a bit of a cop out. I thought it was meant to show that super man had flaws or something that makes him look more human. He breaks down and looks emotional and human in a movie where he is nigh invulnerable and almost unkillable. Btw, spoiler tags.
You don't have to show it by having him kill. He's Superman. The effort to kill is NOT an issue here...Supes can kill without effort at all, if he wants to. Forcing him to kill is telling us he had no options ...except, he's Superman. There WERE other options, for him.
It was unsatisfying. A good movie, in its own way, right up until that point.
I mean, come on. Poke him in the eyes, shut down the heat vision. That kryptonian colony ship is still around. Use the tech on it and restrain the general. Go maroon him on a colony world. Stick him in cryo sleep.
There were alternatives. Killing him was just the fast and convenient way out.
The fact he thought he was killing the last of his fellow Kryptonians could be as much the reason for his devastation as actually having to kill, you know?
==Aelryinth
It was probably a good thing right up until a threat bigger then individual Supervillains came up, and the relatively inexperienced and unbattle-tested 'retired' heroes were wiped out along with the planet Earth.
:0
==Aelryinth
So the issue was not in any way that crime was wiped out, it was that the former superheroes became lazy and complacent instead of being at the ready for the inevitable world destroying threat to show up for Christmas that year like it does every year, not the killing of the villains.
They should've kept training and then murdered the s#!! outta that threat too. Eventually the people that think they can f*%! with Earth would get the message, I'm sure.
How do you train superheroes and keep them busy?
You give them supervillains to fight.
No supervillains. No fighting. It's like throwing a war and nobody coming to shoot one another. Hard to really make good soliders if they never get to fight, y'know? You can only train just so much...there is no sub for battle-tested.
Gives ya more xp, too.
So when the war came, welp, small problem here...dealing with natural disasters just doesn't cut it in the kick=arse department.
I guess you could say they were still too low of level, and an Epic CR fight was beyond them. Heh!
==Aelryinth
And wasn't there a couple Justice League episodes with the Justice Lords where they showcased that whole thing, too?
There were, its the basis of a few other story lines too. The idea of "What if they went too far!" The justice lords specifically took the control of the entire planet into their own hands and didn't just step across a event horizon, but took a leap of faith in order to protect man kind. Not the best example because they took an extreme. It would've been different if superman wasn't willing to take over the planet, or if he could handle what he did, with lots of ifs.(Also plastic man if I recall.)
Of course, I've seen arguments for some heroes fitting every one of the 9 alignments, in particular vigilantes like batman. Humans usually have long lives with lots of choices, and have many chances to go into many different alignments, even if they're dedicated to one occasionally crossing a line, small or big. Again, one of the bigger things I hate about alignments is when it turns into a straight jacket and people argue you just can't do certain things, even if its once in a while.
Meh, I have no problem with doing little things outside of alignment rarely. It's the argument of regularly going outside it by acts opposed to what you claim to believe that irritate me.
Like, oh, Supes killing. It's rare enough that it's a shocker when it happens. Not against alignment, perhaps, but against 'code'.
But how long has it been since Bats has killed someone in the main storyline? I can't think of, like, ever. Because if Bats goes over the line for some putz, the joker is freaking TOAST. If he doesn't go off on the Joker, he's not going off on anyone.
The Red Hood movie illustrated that. Even to avenge Jason Todd, he didn't kill the Joker. That is Incredibly high standards.
And it's a 'straitjacket'. ;) And you're right, it shouldn't be a straitjacket, it should be a cool leather jacket. It should not be a gossamer Lady Gaga costume that rips away in the wind and has no consequences nor relevance. You can play that alignment...it's called N or NE. Very easy to do.
==Aelryinth
Meh, I have no problem with doing little things outside of alignment rarely. It's the argument of regularly going outside it by acts opposed to what you claim to believe that irritate me.
Right, but you say they just can't. That infers never. Its a language thing. People aren't suggesting you regularly torture people, commit genocides for entertainment, or freely use poisons to kill everyone, and steal from anyone you feel like. They argue that there are situations where its much more justifiable maybe, but certainly not that you should regularly mug old ladies because you need the money more or something.
Edit: Your examples are mostly western superheroes. I was raised on eastern more, but I've still seen plenty of western. Cultures change things radically when it comes to views of morality and what actions are what.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-One of the issues that alway comes up in these threads is that moral ambiguity, or deep characters are less common in fantasy by nature of the genre. Comic books and fantasy, superhero and myth are tropes by design. We simply do not have the ability to go deep insdie the motivations of morals of each chararcter in an RPG.
-I'm a huge fan of Russian Literature, in particularly Dostoyevsky, and his novels are famous for their psychological insight. But think about it, we get to hear every though in Raskolnikov's head before he kills. Now imagine, if in game, a player, playing a paladin, submitted your group to a half-hour, in character, reason why you shouldn't kill somebody. Imagine if he actually started crying, or threating party members, or banging his head on the table. This would be a terrible terrible gaming experience, but if you are Daniel Day Lewis it makes you famous.
-At a certain point moral complexity would actually wreck superhero movies, and etc. Look at games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Oh sure they say you have choices, but have the time choices mean making a decission that is evil and you get shiny stuff, or you make one that is good and you get punished when somebody betrays you.
-It's Kantian, but modern sci-fi and fantasy are increasingly theacing the lesson "no good deed goes unpunished." add in the desire for nihilism and moral relativism of our day and you have increasing number of people who just don't get it.
Yeah, the 'no good deed' is a standard of the warhammer setting.
Good people are just unrealistic, peace-loving numbskulls who just get in the way of the guys fighting to kill the bad guys out to destroy everything. Being a nice person is actually close to a death sentence...completely unrealistic in the setting.
Witcher does the same thing as far as choices go. No good choices...you simply exchange one situation you don't really want for another situation you don't really want.
Good being betrayed all the time? Yeah, not suprising. The idea that you can be REWARDED for good behavior, as opposed to taking advantage of evil behavior, just doesn't seem to resonate with a lot of modern fiction.
That's another reason why I like alignments, incidentally. Good things happen for Good people, and there's a reason for it!
==Aelryinth
How do you train superheroes and keep them busy?
You give them supervillains to fight.
No supervillains. No fighting. It's like throwing a war and nobody coming to shoot one another. Hard to really make good soliders if they never get to fight, y'know? You can only train just so much...there is no sub for battle-tested.
Gives ya more xp, too.
So when the war came, welp, small problem here...dealing with natural disasters just doesn't cut it in the kick=arse department.
I guess you could say they were still too low of level, and an Epic CR fight was beyond them. Heh!
==Aelryinth
Except these guys WERE battle tested if they RETIRED from previously being superheroes. They have the experience, they just need to keep physically fit and up to snuff on training (sparring is good for this).
And this completely ignores the point of how silly that is in the first place.
"Efficiency makes you worse in the future!" is the message that's trying to send. It's a terrible moral.
It's like saying when we start a war we should never let it reach its conclusion and instead draw it out indefinitely on the off chance a bigger threat might come around instead of just training our soldiers without prolonging a pointless war just to make sure they "keep sharp" for a threat that may or may not arise in the future.
Witcher does the same thing as far as choices go. No good choices...you simply exchange one situation you don't really want for another situation you don't really want.
Which is why it's so damn GOOD. None of the choices are black and white "Cackling evil villain vs purely sweet goody gum drop", just like that never happens in real life.
There are two sides to every story and for the most part those two sides have roughly equal merit.
And even then, the Witcher has some pretty morally clear decisions right from the start.
"Side with the Witch the paranoid villagers want to burn because they're mofos who want to cover up their own sins...or not?"
Talking about alignment tells you more about the individual talking than any real philosophy.
People that talk about not believing in moral absolutes are just trying to prepare the people around them to not be surprised when they do the wrong thing.
Almost everyone gets right vs. wrong. People that claim otherwise either have the intellect of children or are playing word games to shield themselves from either shame or guilt.
Woah, that's dangerous thinking. I liked the first part, but then in that second paragraph it suddenly went into "But my morality is right and there are absolutes!" and that 3rd paragraph just makes it worse. its dangerous because it infers someone is absolutely wrong and should be treated with paranoia and that is bad mojo to set yourself up for.
Speaking of Kant, I don't like his ideas. They are great for keeping yourself out of trouble on the day to day, but they definitely don't work 100% of the time. If I remember Kant anyway. He was the philosopher who took an extreme absolutionist view, where if its bad in one situation you just never do it right? In which case lying is bad, so never ever lie right? Something like that?
-At a certain point moral complexity would actually wreck superhero movies, and etc. Look at games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Oh sure they say you have choices, but have the time choices mean making a decission that is evil and you get shiny stuff, or you make one that is good and you get punished when somebody betrays you.
Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex: Human Revolution both were a little punishing about how quickly you could make decisions, it actually becomes more of a pain to the gamer than anything I think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-It's Kantian, but modern sci-fi and fantasy are increasingly teaching the lesson "no good deed goes unpunished." add in the desire for nihilism and moral relativism of our day and you have increasing number of people who just don't get it.
This seems to be the gold standard on TV these days. The only cops who succeed are the ones who bend the rules, enter homes without warrants, threaten and intimidate witnesses, etc. Any sort of moral authority is presented as either corrupt, misguided or impotent. Anyone who is married cheats. Anyone in government is a crook. Any character who seems to believe in 'Good' is considered unrealistic or namby-pamby or even *delusional* (or is portrayed as comic relief), and sometimes ends up having to learn important lessons about cutting corners and ignoring inconvenient evidence and covering for the ethical shenanigans of their partners.
Doesn't matter if it's Bones or NCIS or 24, rule of law takes a back seat to results and trusting someone or believing in any sort of goodness is a recipe for disappointment.
It's hardly a shock that players don't even *consider* concepts like mercy or kindness or compassion or virtue, when they are being fed the message that people are untrustworthy scum who always lie and are always hiding something, and that there's no good in the world on a daily basis.
Some DMs, perhaps unintentionally, reinforce that by punishing players who let some bad-guys get away. A Paladin chooses to let the goblin 'women and children' or non-combatants in a brigand camp flee, and then gets smugly told that they came back and burned down the local human village and it's all his fault for being naïve.
And so the 'lesson' of the game becomes 'good is dumb.'
How do you train superheroes and keep them busy?
You give them supervillains to fight.
No supervillains. No fighting. It's like throwing a war and nobody coming to shoot one another. Hard to really make good soliders if they never get to fight, y'know? You can only train just so much...there is no sub for battle-tested.
Gives ya more xp, too.
So when the war came, welp, small problem here...dealing with natural disasters just doesn't cut it in the kick=arse department.
I guess you could say they were still too low of level, and an Epic CR fight was beyond them. Heh!
==Aelryinth
Except these guys WERE battle tested if they RETIRED from previously being superheroes. They have the experience, they just need to keep physically fit and up to snuff on training (sparring is good for this).
And this completely ignores the point of how silly that is in the first place.
"Efficiency makes you worse in the future!" is the message that's trying to send. It's a terrible moral.
It's like saying when we start a war we should never let it reach its conclusion and instead draw it out indefinitely on the off chance a bigger threat might come around instead of just training our soldiers without prolonging a pointless war just to make sure they "keep sharp" for a threat that may or may not arise in the future.
Witcher does the same thing as far as choices go. No good choices...you simply exchange one situation you don't really want for another situation you don't really want.Which is why it's so damn GOOD. None of the choices are black and white "Cackling evil villain vs purely sweet goody gum drop", just like that never happens in real life.
There are two sides to every story and for the most part those two sides have roughly equal merit.
And even then, the Witcher has some pretty morally clear decisions right from the start.
"Side with the Witch the paranoid villagers want to burn because they're mofos who want to cover up...
'battle-tested' ten years ago is not battle-ready now. Just ask any veteran how long it takes to NOT be battle-ready and up to snuff once you sign out. It doesn't take long at all.
And there's a whole world of difference between black and white, and black, charcoal, scorched grey, dead grey, and gritty gray. White? White where?
That's why I have problems with your view point. You're contrasting black and white. The choices they give have all sorts of black, and not a whole lot of white at all. And I loathe the idea that there can't be good coming out of things. The idea of all solutions being 'the best of bad choices' or 'the lesser of two evils' all the freaking time does NOT play with me.
Like I said, if I want crapsack 'no good solutions', I'll go play Warhammer. Keep it out of my PF, tho!
==Aelryinth
There is no clear white in real life either, just like there is no black. There are just shades of gray. Some of which are so bright as to be near white, and some "charcoal gray" certainly, but no black or white. Things simply ARE NOT that simple no matter how much people wish they were.
"There is no pure good" is not equal to "there is no good".
-It's Kantian, but modern sci-fi and fantasy are increasingly teaching the lesson "no good deed goes unpunished." add in the desire for nihilism and moral relativism of our day and you have increasing number of people who just don't get it.This seems to be the gold standard on TV these days. The only cops who succeed are the ones who bend the rules, enter homes without warrants, threaten and intimidate witnesses, etc. Any sort of moral authority is presented as either corrupt, misguided or impotent. Anyone who is married cheats. Anyone in government is a crook. Any character who seems to believe in 'Good' is considered unrealistic or namby-pamby or even *delusional* (or is portrayed as comic relief), and sometimes ends up having to learn important lessons about cutting corners and ignoring inconvenient evidence and covering for the ethical shenanigans of their partners.
Doesn't matter if it's Bones or NCIS or 24, rule of law takes a back seat to results and trusting someone or believing in any sort of goodness is a recipe for disappointment.
It's hardly a shock that players don't even *consider* concepts like mercy or kindness or compassion or virtue, when they are being fed the message that people are untrustworthy scum who always lie and are always hiding something, and that there's no good in the world on a daily basis.
Some DMs, perhaps unintentionally, reinforce that by punishing players who let some bad-guys get away. A Paladin chooses to let the goblin 'women and children' or non-combatants in a brigand camp flee, and then gets smugly told that they came back and burned down the local human village and it's all his fault for being naïve.
And so the 'lesson' of the game becomes 'good is dumb.'
Yeah, you are quite right. All grey murky betrayal all the time.
Tywin is LE, check his dialogue, with some LN justifications.
Tyrion is N, with leanings to chaotic and lawfulness at times. A halfman in the middle.
Jaime starts as NE but moves around. Arrogant brilliant swordsmen that doesn't care about most people or rules.
Cersei is CE, she doesn't give a s$*&, and is as horrible as it gets except for...
Joffrey. CE, and he likes it.
But if the Justices were goblins then their actions would OF COURSE be evil either way they ruled so they should have been killed on sight.
No, if Goblins are a chaotic evil society, they'd have no use for judges. Might makes right, burn BURN!
For all the hubbub it generates on internet forums, I've never seen alignment cause problems at the table, even before 4e became my go-to rpg.
That said, the PHB doesn't have any business telling players "You must be alignment X to be class Y." *cough* paladins *cough* I can see the argument for "Your alignment must be similar to your deity's," but any restriction beyond that is too much like handing the player a script and ordering him to read it.
Yep, vengeful and not taking s%*$, is not exactly covered by alignment.
A LG knight character of mine was a bit like that, he had pride (not the stupid arrogant pride of an aristocratic stereotype), you treated him with respect or you got the mace.
Yep, vengeful and not taking s!&$, is not exactly covered by alignment.
blessed are the merciful, for they will obtain mercy?
Pretty sure vengence isn't good.