Not big on anything being inherently evil.I'm pretty sure that alignment threads are inherently evil...
Burn it with fire? I think it has regeneration.
Burn it with fire? I think it has regeneration.Not big on anything being inherently evil.I'm pretty sure that alignment threads are inherently evil...
You may want to add acid as well in case fire doesn't prevent it from regenerating.
You may want to add acid as well in case fire doesn't prevent it from regenerating.Burn it with fire? I think it has regeneration.Not big on anything being inherently evil.I'm pretty sure that alignment threads are inherently evil...
Kill it, concecrate it, burn it to ashes, drown it in acid. Best be absolutely sure.
Anyways, at least I now know I can use anime characters as ideas for chaotic monks out of this. Not sure how far that'll get me in life, but I know I can!
|
You may want to add acid as well in case fire doesn't prevent it from regenerating.Burn it with fire? I think it has regeneration.Not big on anything being inherently evil.I'm pretty sure that alignment threads are inherently evil...Kill it, concecrate it, burn it to ashes, drown it in acid. Best be absolutely sure.
Anyways, at least I now know I can use anime characters as ideas for chaotic monks out of this. Not sure how far that'll get me in life, but I know I can!
Well.. anime characters.. and Po from kungfu panda. He's pretty much very chaotic. Maaybe he had some what of an alignment shift.. but even in 2, he was still very chaotic. Wasn't till the end he finally realized a life lesson and discovered how to defeat the evil bad guy.
chaotic monks? how about every drunken monk ever.
chaotic monks? how about every drunken monk ever.
I do have a long story about a drunk monk and his friend stealing the crabby patty formula. That was a fun time. Totally not lawful though. The monk did a hundred push ups that morning and the morning after. Can't say he wasn't disciplined about that!
chaotic monks? how about every drunken monk ever.
Strangely enough, by rules as written, monks with the Drunken Master archetype are required to be lawful (since they cannot also take the martial artist archetype in order to escape that restriction -- both archetypes replace still mind, among other abilities). But it would seem like it would be easy for a freedom loving character who mostly remains sober to be at least as lawful as a Drunken Master monk.
One workaround option to consider might be to write "lawful good" as the character's alignment when about to gain a monk level and change it back to "neutral good" the rest of the time. An ex-monk loses no class abilities, just the ability to gain monk levels -- and that is regained if the monk becomes lawful again. If DM and player are both on board with that option, the alignment restriction already can be treated as though it did not exist.
The real problem that the player under discussion faces is the relative lack of synergy between bard and monk abilities -- and neither class is all that strong on its own to begin with. So that player is faced with the choice of merely dipping into one class for a level or two or trying to work out a way to make the abilities of the class synergize.
I purposefully did not bring up the drunken master archetype because it disappoints me so much(it is one of my favorite monk concepts, and I have been known to get a little "into character" when playing them ;p) the shear shenanigans you have to perform to play it the way you suggested is ridiculous (and most dms wouldn't be too keen on just flip flopping alignments whenever it suits you, I have only allowed it once on a character with split personality).
Actually, there is no real mechanical difference between my suggestion and just writing "lawful good" on the character sheet and then forgetting about it. Since the character is not a paladin and has no problem with being good, the only potential problem would be actions that shift your alignment on the law-chaos axis. As best I can tell, there are few if any such actions that a good bard/monk would be likely to commit.
while the crb says to be relatively lenient when it comes to alignment (as long as it doesn't affect class features), it also says thisActually, there is no real mechanical difference between my suggestion and just writing "lawful good" on the character sheet and then forgetting about it. Since the character is not a paladin and has no problem with being good, the only potential problem would be actions that shift your alignment on the law-chaos axis. As best I can tell, there are few if any such actions that a good bard/monk would be likely to commit.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic
neutral characters.
and as far as "rare" chaotic actions go
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.
now if you were already going as far as to outright ignore the alignment you chose for your character, why wouldn't be simpler (and more honest) to just lift the lawful requirement.
Allignment threads never fail to deliver. It's amazig. Keep it up boys.
|
Monks are lawful because their disciplines require... well, discipline. A regimen. Strict adherence to a specific path of routines, practices, rituals, etc. Whether it would unbalance the game is unimportant; it would violate the tone of the monk.
And tone trumps mechanics every time--at least, in our group it does.
Yeah, because none of the other classes require training or discipline.
[rolls eyes]
|
Again, I don't believe its "The regime," or "discipline."
Monks in Pathfinder and 3.5 before it aren't just guys in pajamas who punch good, they're walkers on the path to enlightenement. Like fantasy boddhisvatas or something. Its why they turn into nigh immortal unchanging outsiders at the end of their pathway. Like Calybos says, its sort of a tonal issue. Mechanically its nothing.
The lawful alignment is 'justified' because the idea they're meant to represent (the serene fellow sitting on a mountain top, or the ageless master who wanders the earth imparting wisdom) are fundementally lawful concepts, concepts that represent what the developers saw as a lawful mindset. Its not an issue of whether 'enlightenment' entails balance or whatever, thats what they were designed for, just like paladins aren't just 'holy crusaders,' but are prototypically upstanding principled Kknightly types.
|
|
Yeah, because none of the other classes require training or discipline.
[rolls eyes]
Not to the degree and manner that the monk does. Obviously. [rolls eyes]
Yeah, just think what those lazy wizards could do if they had training and discipline! Instead of punching holes in reality, they could punch some dude in the nose!
:P
All that required training and discipline, and monks are still considered by many to be the weakest class in the game.
|
By that logic, Wizards, Magi, and Alchemists should also be required to be Lawful.
If the only way to learn prepared magic is via apprenticeship or from an academy over 10 years, they probably should, at least for level 1. Any type of student has to obey a strict set of rules in order to receive instruction. If you decide not to obey those rules on a whim because of your chaotic nature, then you will be expelled. If you are chaotic and manage to curb yourself to obey those rules over a course of 10 years, are you really chaotic anymore?
Of course, it doesn't take 10 years to learn wizardry if you multiclass into it, so why then does it take that long if you don't multiclass into wizard?
|
|
So you argue that learning the fundamental rules of reality to the point where you can alter them with a few gibberish words, a process that can take a decade or more to get a simple mote of light or make a door close on its' own (if nothing is in the way) takes less discipline than learning the basics of martial arts?
By that logic, Wizards, Magi, and Alchemists should also be required to be Lawful.
No, I was just saying that the Wizard doesn't transmogrify into an outsider as his standard capstone like the monk does.
Monk is basically a giant training course for a lawful outsider.
This thread has inspired me to work on a degenerate hedonistic samurai-daimyo to be.
Thinking Samurai 4, Bard 6, Noble Scion 10
Raised with fine military trainng and schooling, possibly participated in a few battles likely commanding from a war pavillion. In peacetime he fancied himself an artist and pursued such a career as an excuse to live lavishly on wine, women and song. As his superiors and parents aged responsibility is thrust upon him. Fat and degenerate, he hires a small legion of servants to carry him around on palaquins utilizing leadership to obtain the services of "real samurai" to deal with anything he can't schmooze.
|
|
I too miss the blackguard. I don't miss the mish-a-mosh "paladins of every alignment" 3.5 tried to give us. They gave me headaches.
Admittedly so do antipaladins. Its like Jerk the character class.
But this is monks! No paladins here, for the love of tiny little pixies. I don't want to be in a paladin-monk-alignment thread, add in fighters and we'd be in the most flamebait thread ever.
Now..
Mechanically, nothing is lost on the monk if he's rejiggered for differant alignments , as like I said mechanically the class is basically 'training wheels for outsiders.' You could mechanically make his punches be chaotic, or good, or evil, or whatever instead of lawful. But you begin to lose something from it. You lose what makes teh class the class. Essentially you lose something deeper then mechanics. The mechanics are immaterial. The monk could be remade or house ruled tomorrow into being able to flurry with dual-wielded shotguns, or launch his fists off like Mazinger Z.
Now this boils down a bit to the crunch vs fluff stuff. The monk is meant to be like Kain from Kung Fu, he's meant to be like a wuxia hero, he's meant to be the serene martial artist sitting in the snow with animals cavorting about him. The guy who as he grows in enlightenment and philosophy, grows in power and learns to focus his ki or his very being into a weapon. Hell, he's even a bit jedi.
The crunch side though says 'I can learn krav maga if I'm an evil jerk, so...' and says this sort of thing is quashing his character design freedom. Its not wrong. It is annoying that you can't be Akuma and be chaotic evil and throw ki around. But its not unreasonable for restrictions on thing like alignment, or even race to exist (like how wizards couldn't be dwarves in older editions). Its just the way the fluff works.
|
|
If the only way to learn prepared magic is via apprenticeship or from an academy over 10 years, they probably should, at least for level 1. Any type of student has to obey a strict set of rules in order to receive instruction. If you decide not to obey those rules on a whim because of your chaotic nature, then you will be expelled. If you are chaotic and manage to curb yourself to obey those rules over a course of 10 years, are you really chaotic anymore?
Have you looked at the random starting age tables lately?
Actually, Jedi is an excellent comparison to the monk.
To build on the analogy, Sith and Jedi both approach studying to learn and master the Force, but they do it from two very (very) different routes.
One is arguably very Lawful, and one is very Chaotic. Either path is viable.
These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers. Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be.
My bolding.
Near as I can tell the main prerequisite for becoming a monk is self-discipline and the will to endure a grueling exercise regiment. I personally would not consider said personality traits Lawful-only, and I consider it a very bad precedence if they are meant to be that.
In short, I find that the lawful only requirement on Monks is unreasonable because the requirement itself is not supported in the the class mechanics, nor in the description of the class itself.
Mind, that doesn't mean that alignment restrictions themselves are unreasonable. Clerics in a world where deities have an active presence should follow the deity's philosophy and creed or they will find themselves lacking a source of divine power. The same goes for paladins, since their source of divine inspiration is literally pipelined in from the Powers of Good®.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, what you call 'fluff' is not code for "useless stuff a good game should ignore." It defines the tone and character of the game world, which the rules and mechanics are merely support for. As such, it is far MORE important than any arguments about balance.
I agree that flavor (called 'fluff' when being disparaged) is important.
But Golarion is a world where a gunslinger can ride a charging dinosaur at Cthulhu. It's not Westeros or Middle Earth. It's a pretty loose world with very little excluded.
It's up to each group to say what fits and what doesn't. One group may like RAW flavor. Another may ban gunslingers. A third can legalise chaotic drunken monks. A fourth may decide it doesn't like 'that oriental stuff' and ban monks entirely. These don't destroy tone, they merely change it. It not may be your preferred tone, but that's OK because it's not your game.
Actually, Jedi is an excellent comparison to the monk.
To build on the analogy, Sith and Jedi both approach studying to learn and master the Force, but they do it from two very (very) different routes.
One is arguably very Lawful, and one is very Chaotic. Either path is viable.
These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers. Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be.My bolding.
Near as I can tell the main prerequisite for becoming a monk is self-discipline and the will to endure a grueling exercise regiment. I personally would not consider said personality traits Lawful-only, and I consider it a very bad precedence if they are meant to be that.
In short, I find that the lawful only requirement on Monks is unreasonable because the requirement itself is not supported in the the class mechanics, nor in the description of the class itself.
Mind, that doesn't mean that alignment restrictions themselves are unreasonable. Clerics in a world where deities have an active presence should follow the deity's philosophy and creed or they will find themselves lacking a source of divine power. The same goes for paladins, since their source of divine inspiration is literally pipelined in from the Powers of Good®.
I think a lawful magus is closer than monk to jedi personally, course sith are chaotic. the quigong archetype does help the monk out a little.
I once made a lawful-aligned multi-classed barbarian - nobody in the group noticed / pointed out that it was against the rules. I took the personality I had envisaged - a guy who has urges to kill everyone around him but restrains himself to fit in with the expectations of society - and guessed at the most appropriate alignment for him. At no point in the game did it ever really matter whether he was lawful or chaotic.
What situations are there where you can say, "No lawful character would ever do that"?
Again, I don't believe its "The regime," or "discipline."
Monks in Pathfinder and 3.5 before it aren't just guys in pajamas who punch good,
They can be. Absolutely nothing stops them.
I once made a lawful-aligned multi-classed barbarian - nobody in the group noticed / pointed out that it was against the rules. I took the personality I had envisaged - a guy who has urges to kill everyone around him but restrains himself to fit in with the expectations of society - and guessed at the most appropriate alignment for him. At no point in the game did it ever really matter whether he was lawful or chaotic.
What situations are there where you can say, "No lawful character would ever do that"?
Actually, none, since alignment doesn't restrict your actions at all. Alignment follows actions, not the other way around.
No, alignment has nothing to do with balance. Fluff doesn't balance mechanics.I agree; fluff supersedes mechanics, which is why the disparaging label 'fluff' is so misleading.
I usually disagree with things like that. Fluff is mutable, that's why we call it fluff. You can change it, rearrange it, and make it fit into just about anything. Mechanics are pretty hard coded though. When you talk like that, your okay with tossing balance out the window, or worse, you throw out someone else's fun because they're having a different kind of fun than you.
Paizo missed that one.
Really? So you disagree, and therefore obviously Paizo screwed up? And now your asking others to help enforce your opinion? You don't see anything wrong with that?
Two things:
1.) Chaotic aligned does not mean "F&!* da police". Chaotic people can follow rules. They're not idiots. This is just an extension of that "Lawful Good is the best good!" BS people like to spout everywhere.
2.) No, fluff isn't important. The fact that there IS some is important, but the content of that wouldn't matter.
On top of that, the ONLY argument I've seen on the side of not changing the Monk because fluff is important is the same kind of nonsense Lazar decided to use earlier.
"Oh if we let Monks be Non-Lawful, next we'll have to let them have rocket fists and dual wield shotguns with their teeth!"
If you don't have a better argument than that, you need to rethink your stance, because it's not rooted in anything solid.
|
|
There is absolutely no mechanical reason to keep Monk Lawful-only. The Martial Artist and the fact that you retain all abilities if you become non-lawful proves that. There MAY be a flavor/world/setting reason to do so depending on the world your are playing in. For a home game, do what you want as long as the GM and players agree. For PFS, you are stuck with rules as written.
The issue is some folks view pathfinder/dnd as a big book of mechanics, and others view it as a 'feel.'
Thats pretty much the entire crux of the argument.
I always felt it was a thing about being told "your doing it wrong!" more than anything personally. Have restrictions on your game sure, but don't tell me I have to use the same ones in mine. Freedom of choice is usually a good thing, especially in a game about creativity and the like.
I always felt it was a thing about being told "your doing it wrong!" more than anything personally. Have restrictions on your game sure, but don't tell me I have to use the same ones in mine. Freedom of choice is usually a good thing, especially in a game about creativity and the like.The issue is some folks view pathfinder/dnd as a big book of mechanics, and others view it as a 'feel.'
Thats pretty much the entire crux of the argument.
You are 100% correct. The game should be designed to be as open as possible. Let the individual players/tables restrict themselves if they so desire. This way, everybody gets what they want.
We should also keep the context of this discussion in mind. This is a home game with a question posed by its DM. Any solution acceptable to the thread starter and his players is an acceptable solution to the problem. It does not matter that we might do things differently in PFS or in our own home games.
That said, I can see Monk alignment restrictions being relaxed or dropped in whatever game succeeds the current initial version of Pathfinder -- there are already enough workarounds to it to suggest that it is not essential to the game. See the "Ascetic" and "Devoted" feats in the 3.5 supplement "Complete Adventurer" -- they were workarounds for special multiclassing rules that Pathfinder quickly dropped.
I agree; fluff supersedes mechanics, which is why the disparaging label 'fluff' is so misleading.I usually disagree with things like that. Fluff is mutable, that's why we call it fluff. You can change it, rearrange it, and make it fit into just about anything. Mechanics are pretty hard coded though. When you talk like that, your okay with tossing balance out the window, or worse, you throw out someone else's fun because they're having a different kind of fun than you.
I disagree. The point, I think, behind statements like fluff superseding mechanics is putting the elements in their appropriate context. What are the mechanics for? They operationalize the fluff in an organized manner. That's not about throwing out someone's fun at all. If anything, an over-rigid application of mechanics is far more likely to throw out someone else's version of fun because it is immutable or at least not subject to the mutations that would support variations in the fluff - like a non-lawful martial artist best modeled with monk mechanics yet not following the default, published lore of the class.
You are 100% correct. The game should be designed to be as open as possible. Let the individual players/tables restrict themselves if they so desire. This way, everybody gets what they want.
That depends. Is an open-ended as possible game really D&D or D&D's descendants? At what point does loss of continuity help or hurt the game's reach and adoption? Alignments, including some quirkly alignment restrictions, are a very D&Dish structure. Can a game, as published, claim the name or mantle of D&D without it without encountering resistance?
Frankly, I think most of these sorts of issues are best served by maintaining the structure but including a sidebar or subheading describing the common, home-campaign option of dispensing with alignments altogether. That way the legacy is upheld while significant alternative options are also presented.
What are the mechanics for? They operationalize the fluff in an organized manner. That's not about throwing out someone's fun at all. If anything, an over-rigid application of mechanics is far more likely to throw out someone else's version of fun because it is immutable or at least not subject to the mutations that would support variations in the fluff - like a non-lawful martial artist best modeled with monk mechanics yet not following the default, published lore of the class.
I sort of agree, I think mechanics should support fluff to an extent, but I would rather leave things open ended. Monks being a guy who punches things is great, but when you start demanding I act in a certain way I think it oversteps its boundaries and it becomes that "over-rigid" thing you mentioned. Mechanically monks aren't that great and can harm the user in the long run by being the class chosen to be the guy who punches things though so...
The published lore is irrelevant. It is, at best, a place for starting players to get their feet wet. The mechanics are simply a level-locked list of abilities. The flavor behind those mechanics is dependent upon the player. The only flavor on a PC that matters is the flavor his player gives him.
Class is not concept, concept is not class.
Classes are mechanical constructs one uses, singularly or in combination, with other game elements, to realize a concept.