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.
Because the more open, free option should be the default. Restrictions go at the player/table/campaign world level, not the system level.
Except they don't.
The difference here is that if a GM has no preference either way, but a player wants a non-Lawful Monk, that player doesn't get a non-Lawful Monk.
Without the restriction, only people who feel strongly against it need apply the restriction. It's more beneficial to more parties (the indifferent and those against it) than leaving them in (which only benefits those who like the restriction).
So no divine/arcane magic divide? LG clerics of CE deities?
Or is it only that restrictions you don't like shouldn't be at the system level?
I'd be quite fine with both of those.
Heck, I've done the 'no alignment requirements for clerics' for years.
|
Except they don't.
The difference here is that if a GM has no preference either way, but a player wants a non-Lawful Monk, that player doesn't get a non-Lawful Monk.
If the GM doesn't allow a non-Lawful Monk, doesn't that mean he has a preference, however small, for Lawful Monk? The player can always look for another GM that will allow it.
No, it means he plays RAW.
So you would want the rules not changed even with the number of people who would be fine with it? Because "they can houserule it"?
So you would want the rules changed even with the number of people who would not be fine with it? Because 'they can houserule it'?I'd be quite fine with both of those.
Heck, I've done the 'no alignment requirements for clerics' for years.
If the rules change grants more freedom, absolutely. As I've said, repeatedly and apparently nobody cares, restrictions go at the table level, not the system level.
Let them print a 'Golarian Gazette' that says 'In this world, monks are lawful' and 'In this world, clerics blah one step blah god'. People who play in Golarian get theirs, and people who aren't playing in Golarian get theirs. Best of both worlds.
|
|
A Monk is a guy who practices his breathing for three hours to learn to control his Ki when he would rather be napping under the tree with a fishing pole.
A Monk is a woman who stands underneath a waterfall to toughen her body even when she could be picking up guys (or girls) in the next town.
What about a chaotic character who does not want to do those things, or simply wants to be tougher and have more controlled Ki more than they want to nap and flirt? Chaotics aren't all hedonists.
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.
What if I want to play a character from a tribal culture (a “barbarian”) but with the fighter or ranger class instead of the barbarian class? Or a character of the barbarian class who is a raging alcoholic from a civilized culture? Or a samurai who is actually a paladin by class? No one is suggesting bringing character concepts that don't exist in PF into PF, they're just suggesting using a class to achieve a character concept normally associated with a different class.
Well said, Calybos. I really don't get the hatred of alignment.
I don't hate alignment, I just think “my character class requires it” is a really stupid reason to pick an alignment compared to “my character's personality and beliefs are best described by this alignment”
But i think it would be interesting making a lawful neutral barbarian. Not sure how I'd play it but hey.
A tribal LN barbarian? Not hard:
1) The tribal elders deserve your respect and obedience.
2) Tribal customs and traditions must be followed.
3) Honour, honesty and loyalty are vital. A warrior who breaks his oath or who betrays a fellow-warrior shames his ancestors.
4) Rage is a state in which you channel the spirit of a true warrior, perhaps one of your ancestors, and allow that spirit to guide you in battle. This spirit grants you great power but also drives you with single-minded focus such that you cannot concentrate on anything besides defeating your enemies. For extra flavour, create rituals to be performed readying yourself for rage or thanking the warrior spirit for joining with you.
You started it, just saying.
If you have an argument besides "there are people who disagree, therefore you shouldn't want it changed" I'm all ears.
So you would want the rules not changed even with the number of people who would be fine with it? Because "they can houserule it"?So now we're down to each side screaming 'because I want it and you're mean to deny it'?
no, we're down to
"People should play how they want."vs.
"MINE IS THE ONETRUEWAY!"
Why anybody would support the latter, I'll never know.
Why anybody would support the latter, I'll never know.Yeah, we should ask the next time we see someone that does.
I don't think your reflection in the mirror will answer you, Sunshine.
You must be new around here.
Relatively, yes. Not that my time on this board affects the validity of my opinions like 'people should be allowed to play their character how they want'.
If you're wanting to whip out gaming pedigrees and compare sizes, I've been playing since the ORIGINAL Red Box.
Sun Wukong, the classic zany monk, is a deity in Pathfinder. He's Chaotic Neutral.
just gonna bring this over to this page. Nice to know one of the setting gods doesn't directly contradict the class.
May you achieve enlightenment.You must be new around here.Relatively, yes.
It's the one true way;)
If the rules change grants more freedom, absolutely. As I've said, repeatedly and apparently nobody cares, restrictions go at the table level, not the system level.
Then why have classes with any restrictions at all? Why can't all character classes learn all simple and martial weapons? Is that really a major balance concern? Why have prerequisites on feats?
Ultimately, the game should have whatever restrictions and freedoms the designers and publisher want the game to have to define how it plays and define its character. Paizo wanted PF to take up the mantle of D&D 3.5 and so they elected to continue to have alignment restrictions built into certain classes. By doing so, they reinforced its D&Dishness. And I think they did alright making that decision, particularly since it's very easy to adjust this particular issue at the table.
AFAIK In PF Sun Wukong has very little to do with Monks.
Irori is still the main Monk diety and he's lawful to the max.
Then why have classes with any restrictions at all? Why can't all character classes learn all simple and martial weapons? Is that really a major balance concern? Why have prerequisites on feats?
Still, again, the only argument I see is an all or nothing "Rigid restriction or anarchy, no middle ground". It's been done. Come up with something better.
Though you do raise an interesting point: Why WOULD it matter if everyone had martial proficiency? I think it would change about as much as getting rid of alignment restrictions.
I.e. not much but all for the better.
If the rules change grants more freedom, absolutely. As I've said, repeatedly and apparently nobody cares, restrictions go at the table level, not the system level.
Then why have classes with any restrictions at all? Why can't all character classes learn all simple and martial weapons? Is that really a major balance concern? Why have prerequisites on feats?
Ultimately, the game should have whatever restrictions and freedoms the designers and publisher want the game to have to define how it plays and define its character. Paizo wanted PF to take up the mantle of D&D 3.5 and so they elected to continue to have alignment restrictions built into certain classes. By doing so, they reinforced it's D&Dishness. And I think they did alright making that decision, particularly since it's very easy to adjust this particular issue at the table.
Way to miss the point.
The system has no business telling me how to roleplay my character. The game system has no business telling me how things work in my game world. This, again, is why I say 'print everything, let the individual decide what they want to use'. Paizo can print a Pathfinder Wookiee race or Jedi class and laser weapons if they want. If you like it, use it, if you don't, don't.
A class is nothing more than a level-based system of mechanics used, singularly or in multiples, with other game elements to realize a concept. Classes do not have personalities attached to them.
And it is far easier to point and say 'we're not using this' than to have to create your own stuff. Restrictions are easy to apply at the table level; additions not so much.
Trying to define completely subjective terms like good and evil in objective game terms is an exercise in folly. If alignment was purely a roleplaying thing, then it would be no problem, but alignment affects mechanics (despite saying 'it's not a straitjacket'). Mechanics and rules should be as clear as unambiguous as possible. Alignment is anything but, as evidenced by so many posts asking questions about it.
And to sum up ... you are simply never, ever, going to convince me that a more restrictive system is better than a less restrictive one.
If the rules change grants more freedom, absolutely. As I've said, repeatedly and apparently nobody cares, restrictions go at the table level, not the system level.
Then why have classes with any restrictions at all? Why can't all character classes learn all simple and martial weapons? Is that really a major balance concern? Why have prerequisites on feats?
Ultimately, the game should have whatever restrictions and freedoms the designers and publisher want the game to have to define how it plays and define its character. Paizo wanted PF to take up the mantle of D&D 3.5 and so they elected to continue to have alignment restrictions built into certain classes. By doing so, they reinforced it's D&Dishness. And I think they did alright making that decision, particularly since it's very easy to adjust this particular issue at the table.
Way to miss the point.
The system has no business telling me how to roleplay my character. The game system has no business telling me how things work in my game world. This, again, is why I say 'print everything, let the individual decide what they want to use'. Paizo can print a Pathfinder Wookiee race or Jedi class and laser weapons if they want. If you like it, use it, if you don't, don't.
A class is nothing more than a level-based system of mechanics used, singularly or in multiples, with other game elements to realize a concept. Classes do not have personalities attached to them.
And it is far easier to point and say 'we're not using this' than to have to create your own stuff. Restrictions are easy to apply at the table level; additions not so much.
Trying to define completely subjective terms like good and evil in objective game terms is an exercise in folly. If alignment was purely a roleplaying thing, then it would be no problem, but alignment affects mechanics (despite saying 'it's not a straitjacket'). Mechanics and rules should be as clear as unambiguous as possible. Alignment...
This. This is why I have a problem with alignment being a restriction. It's way to arbitrary to be solid. Simply put. "What's order for the spider is chaos for the fly."
AFAIK In PF Sun Wukong has very little to do with Monks.
Irori is still the main Monk diety and he's lawful to the max.
Clip from the pathfinder wiki. Sun Wukong is a drunken martial artist. Can't spell monkey king without monk! I think the point was that he was an example of what a chaotic monk might look like. He is pretty mystical too.
The Monkey King is worshiped throughout Tian Xia. He loves traveling the Material Plane in the guise of a drunken human martial artist; in this way, the hedonistic god picks fights, woos beautiful women, and drowns himself in potent alcohol
Link to the page. I think he'd make a great deity for a drunken master monk.
Though you do raise an interesting point: Why WOULD it matter if everyone had martial proficiency? I think it would change about as much as getting rid of alignment restrictions.
If you want anecdotal evidence I happen to allow everyone to use martial weapons(and reskinning, but that's unrelated). The best part is the classes that have a more limited weapon selection (Inquisitor, cleric, rogue, Oracle, and Alchemist. The classes with 3/4 BAB really) are able to wield more martial weapons for a martial concept without being punished. Mechanically they get a slight buff, but not really a big one because its such a tiny difference in numbers. Concept wise you see more inquisitors with big weapons of gods with tiny ones, but you see favored weapons slip in every now and then even with that restriction. I've seen a wizard with a bastard sword because of it, but the guy never got to actually use it because well... he's a wizard. Also ate up a good chunk of his encumbrance. The important thing is the world doesn't end, and a few more people are happy.
|
My monk is a fugitive of the law, breaking rules left and right. He is lazy, drinks quite a bit, flirts,gambles and the like. He has little care in the world at all, csnt even keepset hours for his food cart. He'd much rather spend a night partying than. Sitting around undet a water fall while felkow monks punch him in the golden bell to prove he is capable of transending pain or some such. He likes nice things, keeping worldly desiresand the like,UF you were my dm what wouls you do to my monk if he continued to act like that?
My monk is a fugitive of the law, breaking rules left and right. He is lazy, drinks quite a bit, flirts,gambles and the like. He has little care in the world at all, csnt even keepset hours for his food cart. He'd much rather spend a night partying than. Sitting around undet a water fall while felkow monks punch him in the golden bell to prove he is capable of transending pain or some such. He likes nice things, keeping worldly desiresand the like,UF you were my dm what wouls you do to my monk if he continued to act like that?
He'd be pursued by the authorities (intensity determined by just which laws were broken). That's it.
No mechanical repercussions for roleplayed actions.
A class is nothing more than a level-based system of mechanics used, singularly or in multiples, with other game elements to realize a concept. Classes do not have personalities attached to them.
And you will never convince me that this is actually the case either currently or historically. Classes are definitely more than mere mechanics. The lore may be loose in many cases, but it is nevertheless there and provides a certain default character to the game.
Classes are definitely more than mere mechanics. The lore may be loose in many cases, but it is nevertheless there and provides a certain default character to the game.
They are, and that's okay. However some people would prefer a general concept rather than a specific one. Monks raised in a monastery is fine, but its a little weird that every monk in the world is from a monastery right?
Another example: Wizards having spell books is fine, but its not restricting. If all wizards had to go to college and absolutely could not be brought up by themselves and if all sorcerers were chaotic because they were emotional, that's great for flavor! But its bad to restrict that at the system level. There is that guy who's going to want to play a self taught wizard(and likely he doesn't want to just be a generalist or a specific kind of wizard), and there's going to be that guy who wants his sorcerer to have some self control(Possibly a noble, but without taking archetypes that restrict him to a particular bloodline like imperious). Which would you prefer as a house rule, the wizard being lawful only and from college or wizards having the option to be whatever they want?
My monk is a fugitive of the law, breaking rules left and right. He is lazy, drinks quite a bit, flirts,gambles and the like. He has little care in the world at all, csnt even keepset hours for his food cart. He'd much rather spend a night partying than. Sitting around undet a water fall while felkow monks punch him in the golden bell to prove he is capable of transending pain or some such. He likes nice things, keeping worldly desiresand the like,UF you were my dm what wouls you do to my monk if he continued to act like that?He'd be pursued by the authorities (intensity determined by just which laws were broken). That's it.
No mechanical repercussions for roleplayed actions.
Our "fictional culture" or whatever would actually support that there be one.
The trope where powerful fighter gets bested by some rival and he realizes he's strayed from the path and must go train to realize what it means to be a martial artist is rather common.
Granted as written PF doesn't allow this rubberbanding to happen but the events being represented by the character lapsing from LN > CN > LN would be fitting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you will never convince me that this is actually the case either currently or historically. Classes are definitely more than mere mechanics. The lore may be loose in many cases, but it is nevertheless there and provides a certain default character to the game.
A class is nothing more than a level-based system of mechanics used, singularly or in multiples, with other game elements to realize a concept. Classes do not have personalities attached to them.
That is flavor text.
Flavor text is not binding, and more importantly, is not rules.The wizard fluff says 'These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge". My wizard doesn't have to do that.
The barbarian fluff says ' these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare'. That doesn't have to be true of mine.
Bards don't have to be performers.
Sorcerers don't have to be emotional, and they don't need internal magic; they could reflavor themselves as their abilities simply being more spells that they know, and they learn their spells out of a book.
My monk doesn't have to be some navel-gazing perfectionist. Would he call himself a monk? Probably not. But that doesn't matter. He doesn't know what class he is. He doesn't even know that classes exist. All he knows is what he can do.
Our "fictional culture" or whatever would actually support that there be one.My monk is a fugitive of the law, breaking rules left and right. He is lazy, drinks quite a bit, flirts,gambles and the like. He has little care in the world at all, csnt even keepset hours for his food cart. He'd much rather spend a night partying than. Sitting around undet a water fall while felkow monks punch him in the golden bell to prove he is capable of transending pain or some such. He likes nice things, keeping worldly desiresand the like,UF you were my dm what wouls you do to my monk if he continued to act like that?He'd be pursued by the authorities (intensity determined by just which laws were broken). That's it.
No mechanical repercussions for roleplayed actions.
By 'our', you mean 'your', as in Ataraxias's, just to clarify, yes?
I came up with a better solution that doesnt involve alignment; somewhat convoluted but I'd actually replace some of the character's monk levels with say warrior levels to represent the degradation of his skills. After he gets bested by that rival, character does short sidequest/ training montage and regains normal monk levels.
I came up with a better solution that doesnt involve alignment; somewhat convoluted but I'd actually replace some of the character's monk levels with say warrior levels to represent the degradation of his skills. After he gets bested by that rival, character does short sidequest/ training montage and regains normal monk levels.
So... He gets less skill points/HD and better armor proficiencies for being chaotic? I guess that works for a story, but from a day to day mechanics I don't think that's too hot. Especially if the player thinks he can continue to train and be awesome, but has taken a more pragmatic approach to life or begun to be less traditional in some way.
Anyways, I mostly just see conflict in the alignment thing if players and GMs don't totally agree on it. Which has happened quiet a bit in my experience. I like a lax approach myself, but I've always been a pretty casual story kinda' guy.
I came up with a better solution that doesnt involve alignment; somewhat convoluted but I'd actually replace some of the character's monk levels with say warrior levels to represent the degradation of his skills. After he gets bested by that rival, character does short sidequest/ training montage and regains normal monk levels.
Better as in 'less bad', but I still don't see why anything would change. He has the same abilities regardless of his personality or attitude.
I came up with a better solution that doesnt involve alignment; somewhat convoluted but I'd actually replace some of the character's monk levels with say warrior levels to represent the degradation of his skills. After he gets bested by that rival, character does short sidequest/ training montage and regains normal monk levels.Better as in 'less bad', but I still don't see why anything would change. He has the same abilities regardless of his personality or attitude.
You've honestly never seen this trope play out? Heck even non-monk like stories like Rocky III use this progression.
I'd rather this trope not play out in an RPG.
Literally losing class levels is the worst possible thing.
You've honestly never seen this trope play out? Heck even non-monk like stories like Rocky III use this progression.I came up with a better solution that doesnt involve alignment; somewhat convoluted but I'd actually replace some of the character's monk levels with say warrior levels to represent the degradation of his skills. After he gets bested by that rival, character does short sidequest/ training montage and regains normal monk levels.Better as in 'less bad', but I still don't see why anything would change. He has the same abilities regardless of his personality or attitude.
I've seen the trope, but it usually exist with someone who's had years to degrade, not someone who shifted alignments magically or from chaotic actions. Someone who shifts alignments for those reasons can still do 100 pushups every morning and practice.
There are lots of other related tropes too, like the hot shot champion who's on the far side of lawful and regulations but then the chaotic rookie is a rising star with all his ability to adapt quickly. It also infers lawful = best, which isn't the best moral in the world imo.
Edit: I should add that Rynjin has a point too. If you replaced all your monk levels with warrior levels you couldn't even punch without provoking an AoO, and usually when people pick a class that's what they want to play. "I'm sorry, your a little too chaotic lately. You forgot how to punch people right! Here, now your a warrior!" that doesn't always go over well.
|
|
I'd rather this trope not play out in an RPG.
Literally losing class levels is the worst possible thing.
The trope could work out.. if.. we.. It was /roleplayed/ out rather than mechanically hamfisted into place.
For example, We had a party where i played an alchemist, dedicated to perfecting her body beyond that of mortals. We had a loner cleric, a ranger guide, an oracle who was the leader despite not being of a mindset to lead, and the standard 2h fighter. We get attacked by something that /kicks our flanks/ hard. My Alchemist begins formulating plans and figuring out why things went wrong. So she comes up with plans to make her infusions and hand them out to the rest of the party. Essentially she develops as a character to overcome the rival
I wouldn't mind seeing some Ultimate Player, Ultimate Feats, and Ultimate Spells. Basically books with all the classes and archetypes put together, a book with all the feats put together and a book with all the spells put together. All with new stuff. Some things I am so tired of being separate. its intimidating to look through several books and companions to look figure out what spell I want.
I'd rather this trope not play out in an RPG.
Literally losing class levels is the worst possible thing.
It's a decent concept if you're using it to bridge the gap between campaigns, like wanting to play your high level badass character again but finding the game is low level. Obvious solution is that your guy is a washed up drunk who "used to be somebody."
Suddenly losing class levels is a terrible idea unless the player is in on it and wants the sudden drastic story driven change to be a good opportunity to rebuild their character.
You've honestly never seen this trope play out? Heck even non-monk like stories like Rocky III use this progression.I came up with a better solution that doesnt involve alignment; somewhat convoluted but I'd actually replace some of the character's monk levels with say warrior levels to represent the degradation of his skills. After he gets bested by that rival, character does short sidequest/ training montage and regains normal monk levels.Better as in 'less bad', but I still don't see why anything would change. He has the same abilities regardless of his personality or attitude.I've seen the trope, but it usually exist with someone who's had years to degrade, not someone who shifted alignments magically or from chaotic actions. Someone who shifts alignments for those reasons can still do 100 pushups every morning and practice.
There are lots of other related tropes too, like the hot shot champion who's on the far side of lawful and regulations but then the chaotic rookie is a rising star with all his ability to adapt quickly. It also infers lawful = best, which isn't the best moral in the world imo.
Edit: I should add that Rynjin has a point too. If you replaced all your monk levels with warrior levels you couldn't even punch without provoking an AoO, and usually when people pick a class that's what they want to play. "I'm sorry, your a little too chaotic lately. You forgot how to punch people right! Here, now your a warrior!" that doesn't always go over well.
My example wasn't a loss of all monk levels. Or even a loss of any levels.
Clarification:
Let's say there's 2 level 7 Monks and both go out on a mission for the Pathfinders, one comes back Monk 8 gaining his upgrade to 1d10 unarmed.
The other, due to not taking it seriously, comes back Monk 7/Warrior 1.
They have a sparring match, where Monk 7 notices he's at a disadvantage
"Why is he better than me? We went on the same mission?!"
Monk 8 says philosophical stuff about the way of the fist and inspires Monk 7 to reexamine himself and gets a relatively easy method to fix it.
And of course you don't throw this at the player in the middle of a dungeon.
I think what I'd want is that the Monk stick to SOMETHING regardless of alignment that makes the character want to be a Monk. Like mastery of his fists, or perfecting his ability to convert drink to ki.
Otherwise why would he continue being a Monk? Pragmatically being a Fighter would be much easier both mechanically and fluffwise.
That's still quite annoying from a game balance perspective.
And how would you gauge if the Monk wasn't "taking it seriously enough"? If he were having fun?
It sounds even worse than the alignment restriction. At least there it's HARDER for the Gm to say "F+*% you lol take a Warrior level".
There's no reason for any sort of arbitrary restriction, weakening, or forcing of NPC class levels on a class. It's bad design, and it's unfun gameplay.