Actually, yes, they do have concepts like that. That's the default lore in the rule book. A monk isn't just some guy who's good at brawling. The very first paragraph of the class description will tell you that. You are, however, free to ignore that and use the mechanics to drive some other concept - you just may want to make some adjustments if some things don't fit because the mechanics that follow (including the alignment restriction) are geared to fit that primary concept.Classes don't have concepts like that.
YOU have a concept like that. My Monks are like Jacky Chan, Or the Monkey King.
Restricting concepts never sounds like a good idea for a core rule to me. I mean, in a splat book like "The monks guide to Golarion" it makes a little more sense, but as a core rule restrictions are pretty awful. Suggest sure, but don't tell people its badwrongfun to play it another way by putting an alignment restriction in there.
Actually..For the truly exemplary, martial skill transcends the battlefield—it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind. These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade. 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.No where in there does it say "GIVE UP YOUR COMFORTS CAUSE YOU ARE LAWFUL AND THATS WHAT LAWFUL DO!"
The basic 'concept' is the monk rocks the battle field. They transform themselves into weapons for the express purpose of war.
I haven't been saying anything about giving up creature comforts. That's someone else. However, it's not exactly coming out of left field since that's exactly what an ascetic does.
But don't skip over adhering to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines (see the lawful in there? see the reasons for Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (religion)?). If you want to use the monk class to be a sailor who's good at brawling, the concept of the monk class - the lore encapsulated in that first paragraph operationalized with the monk's mechanics - makes it an imperfect fit. Either adjust it with your GM's approval or live with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sun Wukong, the classic zany monk, is a deity in Pathfinder. He's Chaotic Neutral.
Restricting concepts never sounds like a good idea for a core rule to me. I mean, in a splat book like "The monks guide to Golarion" it makes a little more sense, but as a core rule restrictions are pretty awful. Suggest sure, but don't tell people its badwrongfun to play it another way by putting an alignment restriction in there.
It doesn't say it's badwrongfun to play it another way. The rules incorporate more than just the structures on how the game is played. They also incorporate product identity - the quirks that make the D&D family the D&D family rather than Runequest, Rolemaster, Talislanta, or Chivalry and Sorcery. The rules for the monk lay out part of the game's product identity - take it or, being a typical role playing game, adjust it to fit your own game. Where in the rules does it say playing differently from how the rules are laid out is badwrongfun?
Either adjust it with your GM's approval or live with it.
I know plenty of GMs or games where you don't get a chance to do that. PFS for instance doesn't involve any variance on this sort of thing. I know plenty of GMs who play by PFS rules or just use RAW.
You also might end up with one of those people who believes there really is only one way to play a class.
One might compare this to Paladins, where adjusting them to be champions of other alignments would be a lot more work. A large number of abilities would have to change.
Depends on the alignment. Chaotic/pure/lawful neutral are a bit more work, but to be honest the core class you just need to change a word in the divine bond/fiendish boon class feature.
Also consider this:
Imagine that the monk had never had alignment restrictions. Would you insist on adding a restriction?
How much of this argument is just another old, decrepit sacred cow?
Where in the rules does it say playing differently from how the rules are laid out is badwrongfun?
Where does it say its not? Some people take the lack of chaotic choices as a sign the almighty devs built it that way for mechanic reasons, or for balance(which its not...). I understand product identity, but I'd rather keep Golarion in Golarion and keep the actual game open to a lot of different concepts. Worse, some of the decisions about alignment seem pretty arbitrary or have changed with the game. The idea of allowing bards to be lawful allows more choices, and allowing barbarians to read recreates their identity as a much wider variety of people(and its a lot friendlier to anthropology imo, but I don't expect my devs to be history buffs or experts in that field)
How much of this argument is just another old, decrepit sacred cow?
Core rule books are like toolkits to me, and the setting is something that's made by someone else and already defined. I feel like something is wrong if someone's already making decisions before me about my own game. When people are willing to argue something silly like "Monks always have to be lawful! Even in your homegame." or something similar about paladins or barbarians, it sort of feels like someone didn't care about my opinion.
Where in the rules does it say playing differently from how the rules are laid out is badwrongfun?Where does it say its not?
That is a ridiculous argument. There's an infinite number of things the rulebooks don't say. They don't say I can play PF on Sunday afternoons - am I to infer they're saying I can't play on Sunday afternoons or that by doing so I'm having badwrongfun?
If you gave out Weapon Finesse for free it would still be D&D. Monk alignment restrictions are far less significant than that to the game's identity.
I would disagree with that. Identity is more strongly established with quirks or things significantly different from other products. While the monk's alignment may be a small thing, having martial artists defined as monks (and all that implies) is more significant. As is the alignment structure, including class-based restrictions, in general.
How much of this argument is just another old, decrepit sacred cow?** spoiler omitted **
More or less agreed.
The Monk is such a small element of the game the class could be completely REMOVED and it would still be D&D. Changing a minor aspect of the class is less significant than complete elimination.Or are you saying a D&D game without monks is not D&D anymore?
Kind of what I thought when terms like sacred cow is mentioned with monks... 2E didn't even HAVE monks... unless they were a fringe kit from a splat book nobody in our group liked...
I wanted a martial artist a few years ago, and had to create my own kit.
But yeah, between it not being around in the beginning.,.. and people not liking the current one much (based on the numerous 'monks suck' threads...) I don't think there would be much blinking if the class was removed and golarion kept spinning along
I'd be pissed.
Monk is my favorite class. That's why I want it fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it would be more convenient to allow Neutral and Chaotic characters to become Monks, but you know what? BEING A MONK AIN'T ABOUT CONVENIENCE.
You do make a good point. Anyone who has ever tried to make a Monk not suck could tell you how not convenient being a Monk is.
Of course the lawful restriction on Monks is ridiculous. The explanation never made sense.
Get the Genius Guide to the Talented Monk and let the guy go wild. He's a beatstick, anyway, and is by default not broken.
|
Actually..For the truly exemplary, martial skill transcends the battlefield—it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind. These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade. 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.No where in there does it say "GIVE UP YOUR COMFORTS CAUSE YOU ARE LAWFUL AND THATS WHAT LAWFUL DO!"
The basic 'concept' is the monk rocks the battle field. They transform themselves into weapons for the express purpose of war.
I haven't been saying anything about giving up creature comforts. That's someone else. However, it's not exactly coming out of left field since that's exactly what an ascetic does.
But don't skip over adhering to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines (see the lawful in there? see the reasons for Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (religion)?). If you want to use the monk class to be a sailor who's good at brawling, the concept of the monk class - the lore encapsulated in that first paragraph operationalized with the monk's mechanics - makes it an imperfect fit. Either adjust it with your GM's approval or live with it.
First off.. Back up a bit, and review the conversation. Someone said that giving up the creature comforts WAS the core concept of the class. I said it wasn't. You said it was like that. I pointed out that it wasn't. Now you're trying to say that what I was saying wasn't doesn't apply due to you not saying it, though you had defended the individual who was saying it.
Adhering to Ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines isn't actually all that lawful. Case in point the Druid.
THOU SHALT NOT USE METAL
THOU SHALT NOT DISRESPECT NATURE
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE SIDES (In other words, you know, be neutral)
THOU SHALT NOT SHARE THE SECRETS OF OUR LANGUAGE
etc etc etc. It takes a helluva lot of discipline to be a druid.
Knowledge History/Religion doesn't mean a whole lot. Just that they know religion and history. Wizards do too. Witches do. Bards Do. Clerics Do.
Many GMs focus on the letter of the book. If the book says you must light yourself on fire ever 10 hp you lose on your character, several will do so. PFS definitely will do it.
Arcane Archer, and Stewart Defender used to be Elf and Dwarf ONLY, but suddenly.. They changed the named for Dwarven defender to Stewart Defender to avoid using dwarf only. And They recently deleted Half-Elf Elf requirement from AA. And the world didn't implode with that!
I think the alignment for Monk is fine, they need to follow strict martial discipline in order to become better. Being lawful does not mean you have to follow all the rules all the time. Just follow the rules that was they set to follow, I think that is enough.
Please don't take off the lawful restricting, because I hate it when someone take monk for their power and act with no discipline at all. I have seen a zen archer grappling everything she sees, she never train like my fighting does every morning. My fighter is not lawful, but he does not do random things to risk his life for nothing and put others in danger for pure randomness. At the very least, no chaotic like how barbarian can not be lawful. I think that would make the most sense.
|
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.
I'm actually very much in favor of a Paladin for each alignment. Mostly because I think Alignment is part of a Paladin's superpower, but also because in another thread where it came up an idea came to mind of Paladins being much like the different colored Lantern Corps.
I'd like to ask what books 3.5 had for different alignment Paladins, I'd like to incorporate them in the next game I'm DMing.
Sadly it was in a Dragon magazine, I can't remember the issue.
And I understand the desire to have a system for all eventualities, I actually like a quite a lot of those, but there's something to Pathfinder/DnD that stuff like GURPS, poor forgotten Alternity, Hero and the like don't quite accomplish.
Feel is an important thing to a system. Spirit of the Century, Primetime Adventures are both books of mechanics, but also books of feel. You could arguably turn Spirit of the Century into almost everything, but the book and its design is predicated on pulp. You're not 'playing it wrong' if you use Spirit rules for say a psychological horror game, but its not what it was meant for, and so its not going to fulfill your desire as effectively as something that would.
Its like me buying an cheese and egg sandwich when I want something spicy and then grumbling because I have to house rule it by pouring tabasco sauce all over it.
I don't go to Pathfinder for everything, I go to Pathfinder for well..pathfinder and reliving the glory days of fantasy, "a time of high adventure" as Mako said ages ago.
Systems that let people be very clearly defined classes who do things, with an attempt at balance, where your class is your job description. This is a feature in my mind, and not a bug.
The whole 'all followers of the old gods must die' approach that appears on this forum (down with alignment restrictions, down with class requirements, lets have skills, let us not be weighed down by the past, down with..) doesn't quite feel right to me. Its got that feel of attempting to turn Pathfinder into one of those universal systems that all crunch and no real heart (like GURPS).
Again though, there's no mechanical balance issue to removing the monk's alignment. It doesn't change bab, it doesn't change how most things work with him.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The army of Monkbarians would rule the world!
"You! Why did you intewupt our meditation? I am vewy displeased. Vewy displeased indeed. In Fact I AM DOWNWIGHT ANGWY!!!! MONKBARWIAN WAGE!!!!!"
I read that in the voice of Barry from The Big Bang Theory.
"I was undah the impwession thewe would be stwippahs."|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Look, I get that a lot of posters here don't like alignment restrictions, or the fact that alignment exists at all.
But it's part of Pathfinder. If you have a problem with alignment, you have a problem with Pathfinder. Tone and RP issues like heroism and morality really are an integral and essential part of the game--you can't simply wave them away as 'non-mechanics, and therefore irrelevant.'
Tone really, truly DOES matter. If a player wants to make a magus who applies Flaming to his sword in every combat, he can do that. If he wants to make a Jedi Knight with a lightsaber, he can't--even if the character is mechanically 100% identical to the magus.
Is that an unfair and unreasonable restriction? Nope. It's a tone decision, part of the overall flavor of the game setting. You can't play a superhero either, or a Wookie, or a telepathic alien from the future. Character options are limited for tone AS WELL AS for mechanical reasons. And there's nothing the least bit unjust about that.
Well said, Calybos. I really don't get the hatred of alignment.
Look, I get that a lot of posters here don't like alignment restrictions, or the fact that alignment exists at all.
But it's part of Pathfinder. If you have a problem with alignment, you have a problem with Pathfinder. Tone and RP issues like heroism and morality really are an integral and essential part of the game--you can't simply wave them away as 'non-mechanics, and therefore irrelevant.'
Tone really, truly DOES matter. If a player wants to make a magus who applies Flaming to his sword in every combat, he can do that. If he wants to make a Jedi Knight with a lightsaber, he can't--even if the character is mechanically 100% identical to the magus.
Is that an unfair and unreasonable restriction? Nope. It's a tone decision, part of the overall flavor of the game setting. You can't play a superhero either, or a Wookie, or a telepathic alien from the future. Character options are limited for tone AS WELL AS for mechanical reasons. And there's nothing the least bit unjust about that.
The problem is not with alignment. I love alignment, it gives Pathfinder/D&D something iconic, which makes sense in the context of its world/deity-system and is therefore a pillar of the game.
The problem is that the "Must be lawful" restriction fits badly with the martial artist concept, which is embodied best in the Monk class. Sure, you can do an unarmed Fighter, but it is not equivalent by far to many of the things the Monk class entails. I am also very displeased that to play an unarmored martial artist, I need to take all those concepts of mysticism with them, which is why I like the Genius Guide to the Talented Monk so much... it allow a player to build a non-mystic effective martial artist.
So, in essence, the problem is not with alignments, but that the martial artist concept is very much centered on the Monk class, which itself in its base form is too set on the "mystic unarmed warrior" concept.
Look, I get that a lot of posters here don't like alignment restrictions, or the fact that alignment exists at all.
But it's part of Pathfinder. If you have a problem with alignment, you have a problem with Pathfinder. Tone and RP issues like heroism and morality really are an integral and essential part of the game--you can't simply wave them away as 'non-mechanics, and therefore irrelevant.'
Tone really, truly DOES matter. If a player wants to make a magus who applies Flaming to his sword in every combat, he can do that. If he wants to make a Jedi Knight with a lightsaber, he can't--even if the character is mechanically 100% identical to the magus.
Is that an unfair and unreasonable restriction? Nope. It's a tone decision, part of the overall flavor of the game setting. You can't play a superhero either, or a Wookie, or a telepathic alien from the future. Character options are limited for tone AS WELL AS for mechanical reasons. And there's nothing the least bit unjust about that.
We have a guy who plays a Jedi actually. I play the demon Hiei from Yu Yu Hakusho. It's very easy actually. I play pathfinder because I like the general mechanics of the game and I agree with most of the fluff. But I disagree on some points such as this ridiculous alignment restriction. But it's not enough to turn me off pathfinder. So with a wave of my mighty eraser I ignore the alignment restriction. And if enough people think that it's silly to have a lawful restriction on the monk then the product should evolve. Hell the entire monk class should evolve really.
Well said, Calybos. I really don't get the hatred of alignment.
I don't hate alignment so much as being told I have to use it by other people or I'm doing it wrong. Also the hyperbole about star wars. Of course this game does have telepathic aliens from the future...(Illithid), and it does have lots of big furry things with weird accents(Dwarves, etc.)
Anyways, doesn't break the game at all to allow monks to be another alignment. Mechanically its not a thing about balance.
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.
I'm actually very much in favor of a Paladin for each alignment. Mostly because I think Alignment is part of a Paladin's superpower, but also because in another thread where it came up an idea came to mind of Paladins being much like the different colored Lantern Corps.
I'd like to ask what books 3.5 had for different alignment Paladins, I'd like to incorporate them in the next game I'm DMing.
Sadly it was in a Dragon magazine, I can't remember the issue.
And I understand the desire to have a system for all eventualities, I actually like a quite a lot of those, but there's something to Pathfinder/DnD that stuff like GURPS, poor forgotten Alternity, Hero and the like don't quite accomplish.
Feel is an important thing to a system. Spirit of the Century, Primetime Adventures are both books of mechanics, but also books of feel. You could arguably turn Spirit of the Century into almost everything, but the book and its design is predicated on pulp. You're not 'playing it wrong' if you use Spirit rules for say a psychological horror game, but its not what it was meant for, and so its not going to fulfill your desire as effectively as something that would.
Its like me buying an cheese and egg sandwich when I want something spicy and then grumbling because I have to house rule it by pouring tabasco sauce all over it.
I don't go to Pathfinder for everything, I go to Pathfinder for well..pathfinder and reliving the glory days of fantasy, "a time of high adventure" as Mako said ages ago.
Systems that let people be very clearly defined classes who do things, with an attempt at balance, where your class is your job description. This is a feature in my mind, and not a bug.
The whole 'all followers of the old gods must die' approach...
My reasons behind wanting alignment restriction gone from Monk or Druid is mostly flavor. I look at what the class does, and then look at what it is class-wise, And it's inconsistent as all get all. A Monk stopped being a monk but a guy with kung fu magic and not even one kind of kung fu magic. Druids have several abilities that outright remove themselves from nature, which seems weird to to me but the weirder thing is that Druids are chaotic, good, lawful or evil but just one at a time. if being a force of balance were required to be a druid wouldn't you need to be true neutral all the time. If true neutral was the alignment restriction I'd have no problem with druid alignment, but it moves all into the other territories just muddying up the situation. I guess my point is that with archetypes and flexibility with the core abilities alone These jobe-classes are not clearly defined and I liked that out of pathfinder above 3.5.
To be fair the 'down with the old gods' thing is because despite liking the game I feel like everything wrong with it is a result of traditions that were slowly going out of the game but somehow clung on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, none of those classes are notably more powerful than others, and objectively weaker than the no-restrictions wizard.
You have also proven quite well how alignment doesn't work. Mechanics should be mechanics, fluff should be fluff. Again, explain to me how 'I lied a lot lately, so now I can't learn to punch people in the face harder' makes a lick of sense.
Zhayne - I'm going to pick on your post, but there are a lot of others that would make the same one, I'm talking to all of them.
I am SO sick of people saying that those of us that follow the given fluff are have no imaginations. Like people who change the given fluff are some how better gamers. I'll let you all in on a little secret: The exact opposit is true. Those of us that don't change the fluff, are actually better gamers. We don't power game like the fluff changers do. You see we look at something and say "That's the most optimal mechanic, but the fluff doesn't work, so I'll pick something else". Fluff changers say "That the most optimal mechanic, but the fluff doesn't fit. Meh I'll just change the fluff so I can have the most optimal mechanic". So congrats you creatively power game.
To answer you question about lying, you are taking a very simplistic view and trying to apply it to a complex issue. You can't be a monk unless you have an ordered mind/personality. Someone like that wouldn't lie to create chaos because they dislike chaos. So your liar can't learn to be a monk because they lack the disciplined mind that it takes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So congrats you creatively power game.
You see nothing wrong with this statement? Anyways, both sides can be creative, no need to insult people who use as written or want some changes. Personally, I just want to create a good character for a story who's also a character I can enjoy playing. Understandably that's how I have fun, and I would hate to be forced to play a particular character or not have fun in the game.
And yet, none of those classes are notably more powerful than others, and objectively weaker than the no-restrictions wizard.
You have also proven quite well how alignment doesn't work. Mechanics should be mechanics, fluff should be fluff. Again, explain to me how 'I lied a lot lately, so now I can't learn to punch people in the face harder' makes a lick of sense.
Zhayne - I'm going to pick on your post, but there are a lot of others that would make the same one, I'm talking to all of them.
I am SO sick of people saying that those of us that follow the given fluff are have no imaginations. Like people who change the given fluff are some how better gamers. I'll let you all in on a little secret: The exact opposit is true. Those of us that don't change the fluff, are actually better gamers. We don't power game like the fluff changers do. You see we look at something and say "That's the most optimal mechanic, but the fluff doesn't work, so I'll pick something else". Fluff changers say "That the most optimal mechanic, but the fluff doesn't fit. Meh I'll just change the fluff so I can have the most optimal mechanic". So congrats you creatively power game.
To answer you question about lying, you are taking a very simplistic view and trying to apply it to a complex issue. You can't be a monk unless you have an ordered mind/personality. Someone like that wouldn't lie to create chaos because they dislike chaos. So your liar can't learn to be a monk because they lack the disciplined mind that it takes.
Whoa whoa whoa. I straight up think that the fluff stopped making sense in it's own universe and changing it does NOTHING mechanically. Where do I fit in? Am I a filthy power gamer because I want to be Ken instead of Ryu?
What If I think it's stupid because the first character I made for Pathfinder was a Monk and I didn't realize that Monks had an alignment restriction for a full year? I didn't realize that Druids had alignment restrictions until a month ago. I'm serious I never figured the point because It was never relevant in the concept that those things evoke. Paladins made sense from day one, I didn't even read that, I just kind of 'knew' how a Paladin worked. Clerics too, and also made sense.
I don't think the Lawful alignment equates to having a ordered mind, discipline or ordered personality. Mainly because as books that have come out describing alignment do not confine such concepts to the lawful alignment only. People look at the chaotic alignment and see anarchy but not reading what it means in context of the world or even the broad sense of how the word is used in history that's reflected in the definitions in Ultimate Campaign, Champions of Purity, the three 'Gods of' books.
What if by the definition given to me by the game the Monk's alignment restriction makes no sense to me.
I don't think the Lawful alignment equates to having a ordered mind, discipline or ordered personality.
And I think you're very, very wrong. I think it is the exact definition of Lawful.
I never said anyone was a "filthy" power gamer, I said creative. Do you change fluff to ensure the most optimum mechanic goes with your characters? If yes: Then yes you are. If no; Then no you're not. Don't try to force the shoe on if it doesn't fit.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Look, I get that a lot of posters here don't like alignment restrictions, or the fact that alignment exists at all.
But it's part of Pathfinder. If you have a problem with alignment, you have a problem with Pathfinder. Tone and RP issues like heroism and morality really are an integral and essential part of the game--you can't simply wave them away as 'non-mechanics, and therefore irrelevant.'
Tone really, truly DOES matter. If a player wants to make a magus who applies Flaming to his sword in every combat, he can do that. If he wants to make a Jedi Knight with a lightsaber, he can't--even if the character is mechanically 100% identical to the magus.
Is that an unfair and unreasonable restriction? Nope. It's a tone decision, part of the overall flavor of the game setting. You can't play a superhero either, or a Wookie, or a telepathic alien from the future. Character options are limited for tone AS WELL AS for mechanical reasons. And there's nothing the least bit unjust about that.
The problem is not with alignment. I love alignment, it gives Pathfinder/D&D something iconic, which makes sense in the context of its world/deity-system and is therefore a pillar of the game.
The problem is that the "Must be lawful" restriction fits badly with the martial artist concept, which is embodied best in the Monk class. Sure, you can do an unarmed Fighter, but it is not equivalent by far to many of the things the Monk class entails. I am also very displeased that to play an unarmored martial artist, I need to take all those concepts of mysticism with them, which is why I like the Genius Guide to the Talented Monk so much... it allow a player to build a non-mystic effective martial artist.
So, in essence, the problem is not with alignments, but that the martial artist concept is very much centered on the Monk class, which itself in its base form is too set on the "mystic unarmed warrior" concept.
But that's exactly why the archetype called "Martial Artist" does NOT have that alignment restriction!
I never said anyone was a "filthy" power gamer, I said creative. Do you change fluff to ensure the most optimum mechanic goes with your characters? If yes: Then yes you are. If no; Then no you're not. Don't try to force the shoe on if it doesn't fit.
Well you didn't use the word filthy, but you did say one group of people was better than another as thought it were a fact.
I'll let you all in on a little secret: The exact opposit is true. Those of us that don't change the fluff, are actually better gamers.
Anyways, fluff is mutable to begin with unless the GM says otherwise. Though there are occasions in the game where an author decided fluff for you, changing it usually doesn't hurt anything.
But that's exactly why the archetype called "Martial Artist" does NOT have that alignment restriction!
But people don't want to play a martial artist. The thread isn't about martial artist. I can play a martial artist, but I can't be a master of many styles or zen archer or tetori or sohei or nilla' monk. I would like to be one of those and not be lawful maybe. That was sort of Magnus's point(I think), that you can be an unarmed fighter or martial artist, but that isn't a monk. It gives up the class features that make a monk a monk. Don't get me wrong, its a cool archetype to some people, but its not a monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well you didn't use the word filthy, but you did say one group of people was better than another as thought it were a fact.
You're right, I shouldn't have said that. My only excuse was the fustration I felt at being talked down to because I didn't change fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you didn't use the word filthy, but you did say one group of people was better than another as thought it were a fact.You're right, I shouldn't have said that. My only excuse was the fustration I felt at being talked down to because I didn't change fluff.
Its understandable, emotions are only human.
Personally I'm okay with people playing as written, I just don't like it forced on me.(I've said that a lot). No reason to tell one group they're doing worse than another though. I appreciate having options though, and I don't think a non lawful monk is entirely unreasonable. Mechanically it doesn't end the world. That's the wizards job right?
Discipline at the very least is definitely a lawful aspect of a personality. Part of discipline is sticking to a routine which is a very unchaotic thing to do.
For that matter so is self denial, for whether it's for good or worse, chaotic alignments are pretty much focused on the "ME ME ME" theme. either " I want" for the evils or "What I see as right" for the goods.
In In Nominee, the alignment axis between angels and demons isn't so much between good and evil but between selflessness and selfishness.
Long-term or permanent self denial (a la celibacy or abstinence) I will agree is a lawful trait. However I don't see how self denial and monks are tied together except by the vow mechanics, and those are explicitly voluntary.
I'm not convinced, nor have I seen any convincing arguments, that discipline, or more specifically self discipline (and by extension, willpower) is a Lawful trait.
Finally, I'd say both selflessness and selfishness are solidly placed on the Good/Evil axis, not the Lawful/Chaotic axis. Selfishness is even used as an example of a "lesser evil" in the alignment chapter.
Well said, Calybos. I really don't get the hatred of alignment.
Because it adds nothing worthwhile to the game and takes away so much.
Think for a second. When has there ever been a time you've ever thought to yourself "Man! I sure am glad alignment exists!"? Or do you just tolerate it because it's a part of the game that's not going anywhere because it's been around so long that its presence is a self fulfilling property of its future existence?
But that's overall irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not advocating removing alignment here. Just a pointless, worthless restriction based around the alignment system.
But it's part of Pathfinder. If you have a problem with alignment, you have a problem with Pathfinder.
I have a problem with this part of Pathfinder, yes. Not the game in general. Or I wouldn't play it.
I'll let you all in on a little secret: The exact opposit is true. Those of us that don't change the fluff, are actually better gamers.
This is just as untrue as the opposite statement. Liking the fluff doesn't make you a better gamer. It just means you have a different opinion.
Liking the mechanics doesn't make you a worse gamer either. That makes so little logical sense that I don't know how anyone could conceive of it.
Classes have concepts, though. And the concept of a Monk is that he gives up worldly comforts and desires for the greater good of his physical perfection and/or spiritual enlightenment. That is a Lawful concept, thus they gave Monks the Lawful restriction.Cute, guys. But what about the actual meat of my point? The part about giving up one's freedom/wants? The whole point of Chaotic Good/Neutral/Evil is that they value such things very highly.Which has nothing to do with the Monk class, because that is not a requirement. CLASS IS NOT CONCEPT, CONCEPT IS NOT CLASS.
I'm afraid the only meat in your post was baloney.
Again ...
You can be a monk (class) without being a monk (concept).
You can be a monk (concept) without being a monk (class).
What you are describing is flavor text, which is mutable and most importantly NOT RULES.
I think the alignment for Monk is fine, they need to follow strict martial discipline in order to become better. Being lawful does not mean you have to follow all the rules all the time. Just follow the rules that was they set to follow, I think that is enough.
Please don't take off the lawful restricting, because I hate it when someone take monk for their power and act with no discipline at all. I have seen a zen archer grappling everything she sees, she never train like my fighting does every morning. My fighter is not lawful, but he does not do random things to risk his life for nothing and put others in danger for pure randomness. At the very least, no chaotic like how barbarian can not be lawful. I think that would make the most sense.
So, you say 'monks have to be lawful' in your game, so you get what you want. Meanwhile, the rest of us can play monks of any alignment, so we get what we want.
Everybody wins.
The restriction is bull.
|
|
Firstly. I'm (rather loosely) on the pro-alignment restriction side here and I say this. Stop insulting the other side or making insinuations towards their motives. :p
They've raised very valid reasons why they dislike the alignment restrictions, this doesn't make them unreasonable powergaming darklords out to devour all fantasy so they can play Mathfinder.
What came up that I really agree with is that the martial arts/monk arcetype situation is backwards. A large contingent of our unarmed warrior types are apparently on the promotion track for becoming lawful outsiders. Even the paladin class doesn't have a 'become a celestial' thing to it, they have an archetype for it.
Monk works for the wuxia, master on the hill, Circle of Iron, boddhisvata style of play. Thats what its ideal and intent is really. Thats the flavor its had since 1e. But like the Thief-Acrobat, is that really something you need for a core class? Why not have had it be an archetype or PrC itself? Thats a question only the developers can answer.
And for the latter. Rules serve 'flavor text.' I really would prefer Pathfinder not continue down the dark path of 3e where every supplement we got was just more rules, spells and mechanics. I'm a conservative at heart, I prefer fewer rules. :/
I don't think the Lawful alignment equates to having a ordered mind, discipline or ordered personality.And I think you're very, very wrong. I think it is the exact definition of Lawful.
I never said anyone was a "filthy" power gamer, I said creative. Do you change fluff to ensure the most optimum mechanic goes with your characters? If yes: Then yes you are. If no; Then no you're not. Don't try to force the shoe on if it doesn't fit.
I have to disagree. Lawful implies a lot of things but these are morals not personal discipline. You can have an ordered and disciplined mind and still belief that believes in freedom and personal potential and they definitely have the ability to resent oppressive authority authority, who's adaptive and in favor of change over tradition.
As I said before I don't like the Monk alignment restriction because I think it has no real fluff merit to the point where I think it makes no sense with the fluff and crunch given. If the Monk were flavored like it used to be then I would agree it should be lawful for different reasons, but under Pathfinder it has turned into a catch-all martial artist class as it expands their concepts to encompass Wuxia series, I think for the better, however the lawful alignment does make restrictions on going for the flavor of the most Wuxia thing I can think of, 'Fung Wan'. How do I do Ging-wan or any other Wuxia hero who's expressive and overthrows the leading authority.
Well you didn't use the word filthy, but you did say one group of people was better than another as thought it were a fact.You're right, I shouldn't have said that. My only excuse was the fustration I felt at being talked down to because I didn't change fluff.
Nobody is saying you have to.
What we're saying is, if you want to use that fluff, enjoy. If you don't want to use that fluff, enjoy. Remove the system-mandated pigeonholing and stereotyping, and let the individual player or GM decide how it works at their table.All restrictions like this ... available races, classes, the flavor of the world ... should be made at the table level, not the system level. There should be no 'they shouldn't print this because flavor'. If you don't like it, don't play it or don't allow it, or reflavor it to something that DOES fit your game.
I LOATHE divine casters. But I'm not sitting here saying 'take them out of the game'. I'm not trying to enforce my gaming style on everybody else's. I'm promoting letting everybody enjoy their own style of play.
|
So, you say 'monks have to be lawful' in your game, so you get what you want. Meanwhile, the rest of us can play monks of any alignment, so we get what we want.
Everybody wins.
The restriction is bull.
Why can't you use the same logic?
You say 'monks don't have to be lawful' in your game, so you get what you want. Meanwhile, the rest get to have lawful-only monks in their games and get what they want.
Everybody wins.