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...They were in the Complete Cleric's Handbook.
Gotcha!
Yeah, we pretty much hated the complete Cleric handbook.. glanced through it once or twice and then tossed it to a dark corner. Everything was too... generic. In a 'core rulebook' kind of way... and didn't jive with the Forgotten realms setting we were hip deep in. Same with the wizard handbook... though there were some good profiecencies and spells in that one if I recall.
I remember hearing that my DM played with a 2E monk in the party that COMPLETELY overshadowed his barbarian and EVERYONE else in the game... and thus hated the kit and would never allow them again.
I thought it may have been from 'players' option' black book series.
Regardless, when I wanted to play a hand to hand fighter, I had to rewrite a kit on my own and get it approved first. Turned out to be one of my favorite characters ever.
So no divine/arcane magic divide? LG clerics of CE deities?
Do they even HAVE a divine/arcane magic divide anymore? In 2E it was firmly established Wizard spells and Priest spells... and everyone pulled from one of the lists...
Here we have a unique spell list for each class, and some like Bard are pulling from both divine and arcane?? All the restrictions in UMD seem to focus on what is 'on your list'... and not 'arcane/divine'.
It feels like they already killed that division.
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.
Wait Lawful means that everything is super serious (cereal)?
Who knows!
People seem to think Chaotic aligned characters all have no discipline whatsoever and just live to be lazy a~%!#!*s and have fun all the time, the logical opposite of hat is "Lawful is no fun allowed sprsrs tiem all the time".
I'm just going off what's been posted.
Man, I really screwed up with my MonkCleric of fiery freedom.
|
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.
Now, to extend on the point here. My monk is a monk of the flowing style. As such, he goes with the flow of things, while most would consider his actions Chaotic because well, he doesn't work with lawful authority. He does whatever he wants when he wants to, but due to his predisposition to laziness, He's not really going to go out and start randomly mugging everyone he sees. Even cn rogues don't all do that stuff.
But, if something comes up where he can spend one gold and win ten, well its with the flow of things to do it. Gaining wealth, power prestige.. Sure. As long as he doesn't have to work for it and it just comes to him. He's willing to put up a little effort to gain some, but ultimalty, if he has to work too hard to get it, he shirks away and flows somewhere else. Perfecting his body? Well, if it happens, it happens. Even water isn't perfect.. but that glassy mirror surface happens when everything just comes together. So.. Like the water he just flows.
This doesn't mean he /can't/ put effort when he needs it. Water does push, it erodes things around it. I'm not surprised that the individuals who claim that lawful restriction is needed don't want to touch one of the many many concepts of monk that while disciplined, just doesn't have the full, lawfulness discipline of being able to be set on fire and just calmly walk away to put it out with a tea cup. His discipline is different.
Monk of the empty hand, drunken monk and many others.. The play style they tend to push towards, the /fluff/ even, of them fights against that lawful only restriction. So, when you think of the fluff, think of the /fluff/ of the class, its archetypes and everything with it.
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.
Just because a trope exists does not obligate its use.
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...
What I'm saying is that I see no reason to take any mechanical action against the character AT ALL. Roleplaying actions have roleplaying consequences, not 'Imma screw with your character' mechanical consequences.
Just because a trope exists does not obligate its use.
Pretty sure I disagree with this line of thinking. I am a HUGE fan of gaining inspiration from other media/books/comics etc. I've had many ideas that emulate or are 'inspired' by other characters... and I think the rules of a game like this should support their existence.
Can't say I'm a fan of the 'switching levels of class to emulate whatever' that Ataraxias suggests... but as someone else so eloquently put it.... But Golarion is a world where a gunslinger can ride a charging dinosaur at Cthulhu...
Reality is less important the tropes in a fantasy world. The fact that Anime and media shows MORE chaotic/neutral monks then lawful ones.... should certainly be justification of relaxing that standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because a trope exists does not obligate its use.Pretty sure I disagree with this line of thinking. I am a HUGE fan of gaining inspiration from other media/books/comics etc. I've had many ideas that emulate or are 'inspired' by other characters... and I think the rules of a game like this should support their existence.
I don't think Zhayne was saying don't use it. Looked more like don't force it to me. Two very different things. I love emulating things and allowing rule of cool to go on occasion. That bit of fantasy element is always a plus to me personally, even if its not everyone else's cup of tea.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 don't hate people who play Monks for their power, but I do fear them, because they're delusional.
People who play Monks for their power are far more likely to stab me with a spork than those who don't.
|
|
I would like to see a few more options than just the Martial Artist for non-lawful Monks.
It's one thing to place restrictions on various archetypes, but if you want to play a non-lawful Monk, Martial Artist is it. A few more options would be nice.
Removing the alignment restriction from Drunken Master would be a start.
But that's exactly why the archetype called "Martial...
Yeah, one archetype, which is not even that good, versus 20-something mystic archetypes. Sorry, but I find it completely insufficient to represent the variety of non-mystic iconic martial artists.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's exactly why the archetype called "Martial...Yeah, one archetype, which is not even that good, versus 20-something mystic archetypes. Sorry, but I find it completely insufficient to represent the variety of non-mystic iconic martial artists.
Not to mention several of those 'mystical' archetypes take things that are another form of martial arts.. Like flowing monk, Drunken master, Empty fist..
Gosh.. I could see the totally lawful monastery involved for the empty fist archetype.
"Now my students today we learn how to kill a man with a empty beer mug. No.. that is not right. You need to make sure to break your mug like so over their head, so says the anchient teaches of our true deity.. AAmfafdmalaggggphhbllee. He had perfected this fighting style over hundreds of years of standing out in the middle of a swamp, under a waterfall, ignoring the cravings of flesh, on one leg, in the snow, both ways.. school.. dressing.. Zzzz..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grandmaster Ping; "here, my young disciples, i shall teach you the ways of the Drunken Master. first, like our patron lord, you must refuel your Qui by drinking beer to the point your body collapses from liver poisoning, then our god must choose you to survive. those who survive 100 gallons of Caydenbrew get a free wish."
Grandmaster Ping; "after you awaken from your liver poisoning and survive, i want you to kill 100 Sha with your broken beer mug and drink their very tainted souls on the new moon. from there, i will teach you the art of how to commit murder with a broken beer mug whilst completely inebriated."
Grandmaster Ping; "but young grasshoppers, every day of your training, each of you must end 100 lives with your broken mugs and drink their souls from the cup."
Grandmaster Ping; "after 10 years of drunken murder and soul drinking, you will have learned the power to convert alchohol into Qui. and from there, you will be the perfect disciplined drunken killing machines."
Group of Kids; "Yes Grandmaster Ping"
and so, 25 elite drunken masters were carved out of 1,000 disciples and a metropolis of millions
|
|
What you are describing is flavor text, which is mutable and most importantly NOT RULES.Correct... and what you're not getting is that 'flavor text' is infinitely MORE IMPORTANT THAN RULES.
Very well, read a book and then go find people to rp it. cause when you remove the rules, thats what you'd have.
If I was playing in Golarian, (the PF setting) then yes I'd read the setting books and have fun with those trolls that gut themselves to give out fortunes and all that.
But 9/10 times, I'm in someone elses world and they are the worlds masters, the thinkers, the dreamers, and if they want snozzberries that taste like chimmychangas, well they have snozz berries that taste like chimmy changas.
Just because a trope exists does not obligate its use.
Pretty sure I disagree with this line of thinking. I am a HUGE fan of gaining inspiration from other media/books/comics etc. I've had many ideas that emulate or are 'inspired' by other characters... and I think the rules of a game like this should support their existence.
Can't say I'm a fan of the 'switching levels of class to emulate whatever' that Ataraxias suggests... but as someone else so eloquently put it.... But Golarion is a world where a gunslinger can ride a charging dinosaur at Cthulhu...
Reality is less important the tropes in a fantasy world. The fact that Anime and media shows MORE chaotic/neutral monks then lawful ones.... should certainly be justification of relaxing that standard.
Support, yes. Force, no. And I'm certain you've come across tropes in your other media that you simply don't like, and thus don't use.
For example, the trope that a child of a character always has the same abilities as their parent, whether skills or powers. I HATE that trope. It's all over the place, and it's well established. But I hate it, and would never use it.
As is the notion that flavor text is irrelevant and should be ignored.
It is. The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
And what the DM has set for their world.It is. The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.As is the notion that flavor text is irrelevant and should be ignored.
Very true, I forgot to say that. Thank you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct... and what you're not getting is that 'flavor text' is infinitely MORE IMPORTANT THAN RULES.
...
As he grows in power, the magus unlocks powerful forms of arcana that allow him to merge his talents further, and at the pinnacle of his art, the magus becomes a blur of steel and magic, a force that few foes would dare to stand against.
I am unable to find the rules on how to play a Blur or a Force. Can you point me towards them?
In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know.
Can I still put ranks in Knowledge: Nature despite only knowing conflict? If not, why is Kn: Nature on my class skill list?
The cavalier’s true power comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he swears, and the challenges he makes.
How is my power level modified when I play a chaotic cavalier, and thus frequently break my own oaths?
Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people.
I have taken a level of Oracle and I have the Mute curse. Do I qualify for Cleric even though I do not have the ability to speak, and by extension the ability to preach wonders?
Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, others judging law and truth, and still others spreading conflict and corruption.
I am playing a cleric of Iomedae. When I do have to choose between the ability to offer healing and redemption, and being able to offer judgement of law and truth?
Flavor text is important, but it is most certainly not more important than the rules.
Remove the flavor and you still have a sound class structure to help you define and refine your character.
Remove the class rules and you have a fairly vague description of something you have absolutely no idea how to play.
|
|
Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people.
I have taken a level of Oracle and I have the Mute curse. Do I qualify for Cleric even though I do not have the ability to speak, and by extension the ability to preach wonders?
You probably want a rank in Linguistics. Purchase Semaphore as a language, and you should be set. Preach away!
Go, Flavor Text, Go!
I'm not sure I see why people are so adamant that mechanics and flavor ought to be strictly separate. I don't see what you get out of that. Mechanics do have some flavor built into them. Not necessarily just one flavor or concept, but I don't think you get much if you just disregard the mechanics of the character when deciding fluff. The two work together to create an RPG.
I don't see how deciding you want to play a sophisticated, well-traveled character, then making him a Wild Rager Barbarian and dumping all his mental stats adds anything to the game. That's not to say that the Barbarian class precludes any idea of being intelligent or sophisticated, but you should build your mechanics to match your fluff, and vice-versa, IMO.
As to the OP, I think the alignment restriction on Monks is unnecessarily restrictive, as the Monk class is open to more concepts than Lawful Monks, so get rid of it in your game if you so desire. Alignments do have meaning, and they should, but if he's playing his character to his alignment (or his current alignment accurately reflects his character's actions, either way), then I don't think there's any problem.
|
|
Removing alignment restriction isn't gonna suddenly make pathfinder a completely different game.
If the system had "Monks must always speak in Confucius sayings" and "Barbarians must always screw up pronouns" and "Bards must always speak in rhymes" instead of the alignment system, and it had those limits for years, back when it was just a geeks fantasy of a game, we'd still be arguing that those don't make any sense at all and the speech restrictions should be removed.
I am bothered that cavaliers don't have alignment restrictions. they have a built in set of 'laws' that they have to follow. I find it telling that the base classes don't have alignment restrictions.
I'm not sure I see why people are so adamant that mechanics and flavor ought to be strictly separate. I don't see what you get out of that.
Creative freedom.
|
|
I am bothered that cavaliers don't have alignment restrictions. they have a built in set of 'laws' that they have to follow. I find it telling that the base classes don't have alignment restrictions.
Its not so much 'laws' but a 'code'
Some of the codes are more chaotic, some more lawful, some neutral. But like a hotshot cop, you do have oddballs who follow the code, but only just to the point of considering it a set of 'guidelines'
|
|
Some of the codes are more chaotic, some more lawful, some neutral. But like a hotshot cop, you do have oddballs who follow the code, but only just to the point of considering it a set of 'guidelines'
Careful, some people around here are convinced you can't be chaotic and follow a code at the same time.
It does generate a paradox, though. If someone is completely unpredictable, does that mean that they're predictable because you always know they'll be unpredictable?
If someone following a code is considered 'lawful behavior', but that code says 'lie, cheat, steal, look out for #1, everybody else is a tool to be used to my advantage', which is 'chaotic behavior' ... which is it?
If a tree falls on a mime in the forest ... does anybody really give a ****?
I'm not sure I see why people are so adamant that mechanics and flavor ought to be strictly separate. I don't see what you get out of that.Creative freedom
Are you saying that if people adhere to the general flavor presented with the mechanics, they don't have creative freedom in Pathfinder? I would definitely disagree with that. It might be a bit more challenging to find the right mechanics to match with your concept rather than just arbitrarily change the flavor, but, at least for me, taking on that challenge has always led to more interesting, well developed characters.
Pathfinder has a wide variety of mechanics to build your character with, with a high degree of customization possible. Classes aren't so locked in to one concept mechanically or flavor-wise that you have to play them that way, and can't make your own character. Monks don't have a monopoly on "disciplined guy who punches people", nor do you have to be a "disciplined guy who punches people" to be a Monk. But if your character concept is "disciplined guy who punches people", I don't think it's unreasonable for that to be reflected in the mechanics of the character.
I think I've started rambling, so I will just say that I think the mechanics are versatile and customizable enough that you don't lose any significant amount of creative freedom by adhering to what flavor that the mechanics do have.
You're more-or-less agreeing with me, Lord of Bacon.
As I've said, concept is not class, class is not concept, which you say when you say " Monks don't have a monopoly on "disciplined guy who punches people", nor do you have to be a "disciplined guy who punches people" to be a Monk". That means a monk(class) doesn't have to be disciplined, which means no alignment/behavioral restrictions.
You're right, the character concept is reflected in the mechanics of the character. JUST the mechanics; the flavor is supplied by the player.
|
|
I'm not sure I see why people are so adamant that mechanics and flavor ought to be strictly separate. I don't see what you get out of that.Creative freedomAre you saying that if people adhere to the general flavor presented with the mechanics, they don't have creative freedom in Pathfinder? I would definitely disagree with that. It might be a bit more challenging to find the right mechanics to match with your concept rather than just arbitrarily change the flavor, but, at least for me, taking on that challenge has always led to more interesting, well developed characters.
Pathfinder has a wide variety of mechanics to build your character with, with a high degree of customization possible. Classes aren't so locked in to one concept mechanically or flavor-wise that you have to play them that way, and can't make your own character. Monks don't have a monopoly on "disciplined guy who punches people", nor do you have to be a "disciplined guy who punches people" to be a Monk. But if your character concept is "disciplined guy who punches people", I don't think it's unreasonable for that to be reflected in the mechanics of the character.
I think I've started rambling, so I will just say that I think the mechanics are versatile and customizable enough that you don't lose any significant amount of creative freedom by adhering to what flavor that the mechanics do have.
Thats why you play a monk in the first place. To punch things really.
Its the lawful restriction on it, that strangleholds concepts like the monks that are not all going "Confucius say, he who is on other end of fist gets big bruise." every time they speak.
Whether or not a Monk has to be disciplined is irrelevant to the alignment restriction. I've read and re-read the alignment section of the Core Rulebook several times, and the Lawful alignment says nothing whatsoever about discipline. The alignment restriction does mean that Monks have to be honorable, trustworthy, and reliable.
The reason I disagree with the alignment restriction for Monks is because I think the flavor given with the Monk class is more open than just lawfully-aligned characters. I think that classes in general are pretty open concepts. It's more when you get down to specific mechanics that they have their own distinct flavor.
I use the alignment system, though I admit it's hardly perfect, and I prefer to keep alignments and class restrictions for the most part, like with Paladins. Of course, a GM running a home game can change both the mechanics and the flavor to suit his game, but if we're speaking in general or for the default Pathfinder setting, I think the connection between mechanics and flavor is something worth hanging onto.
So a monk's abilities are tied to alignment just as much as a paladin: Why must a Paladin be good? Because his class gets to smite evil, gains powers against evil, and gains DR/evil. Similarly, a monk gains DR/chaotic and law-aligned strikes.
However, a monk's flavor text just doesn't explain this connection to alignment; at least, not like a Paladin's does. Because a Paladin's abilities AND flavor are connected to alignment, this is why we also get the Anti-Paladin (an evil paladin) and the Cavalier (ability-wise, a neutral paladin with challenge instead of smite, edict abilities instead of auras, etc.)
The question for Pathfinder and Golarion is, why are Golarion monks the champions of law? It isn't that the ki pool needs lawful alignment: Ninjas get one and have no restrictions. So why is the Monk tied to it? If there is no reason than yes, the monk should be changed to be without an alignment restriction. But if there is a reason, than what really needs debating is what do the Anti-Monk (chaotic version) and Cavalier version (non-aligned monk) look like, and how do they intersect with the normal monk base class?
Personally, a world with monks championing civilization and anti-monks championing anarchy, doing battle like Paladins and Anti-Paladins with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, sounds pretty awesome.
So a monk's abilities are tied to alignment just as much as a paladin: Why must a Paladin be good? Because his class gets to smite evil, gains powers against evil, and gains DR/evil. Similarly, a monk gains DR/chaotic and law-aligned strikes.
However, a monk's flavor text just doesn't explain this connection to alignment; at least, not like a Paladin's does. Because a Paladin's abilities AND flavor are connected to alignment, this is why we also get the Anti-Paladin (an evil paladin) and the Cavalier (ability-wise, a neutral paladin with challenge instead of smite, edict abilities instead of auras, etc.)
The question for Pathfinder and Golarion is, why are Golarion monks the champions of law? It isn't that the ki pool needs lawful alignment: Ninjas get one and have no restrictions. So why is the Monk tied to it? If there is no reason than yes, the monk should be changed to be without an alignment restriction. But if there is a reason, than what really needs debating is what do the Anti-Monk (chaotic version) and Cavalier version (non-aligned monk) look like, and how do they intersect with the normal monk base class?
Personally, a world with monks championing civilization and anti-monks championing anarchy, doing battle like Paladins and Anti-Paladins with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, sounds pretty awesome.
Ok now this is getting interesting.
It seems to me that you have a problem with the alignment system in general. Why not just remove it in your game.Already did, thanks. Doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss it here. Sorry if that bothers you.
I'm interested in what your experience in playing without the alignment system has been, since I've never actually done that myself.
|
|
I'm interested in what your experience in playing without the alignment system has been, since I've never actually done that myself.It seems to me that you have a problem with the alignment system in general. Why not just remove it in your game.Already did, thanks. Doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss it here. Sorry if that bothers you.
Honestly? Barely noticed any difference. Still had characters, conflict, and most importantly fun.
I've thought about getting rid of alignment and replacing it with Magic: the Gathering colors but too many abilities seem tied to the system.
I'm interested in what your experience in playing without the alignment system has been, since I've never actually done that myself.It seems to me that you have a problem with the alignment system in general. Why not just remove it in your game.Already did, thanks. Doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss it here. Sorry if that bothers you.
I know this isn't directed at me, but I have long since done away with the law/chaos axis, and never looked back. heck the only reason we still have good and evil is simply to simplify smite and detect evil (in other words keeping paladins as is). no more "my character concept is a freedom fighter who took an oath to overcome slavery at every turn, wait oaths are lawful but freedom fighting is explicitly defined in the chaotic entry?" *universe implodes*. note that the character concept given could literally be any class but Antipaladin. My players are happy for more open character concepts, I am happy for getting rid of an unnecessary complication, and the only thing I went out of my way to do was do custom paladin oaths for my homebrew settings gods (as they some up), and changed a reflavored champion of iori to be more good themed over law.
Whether or not a Monk has to be disciplined is irrelevant to the alignment restriction. I've read and re-read the alignment section of the Core Rulebook several times, and the Lawful alignment says nothing whatsoever about discipline. The alignment restriction does mean that Monks have to be honorable, trustworthy, and reliable.
And I don't think that should be baked into the class, because you don't have to be honorable, trustworthy, or reliable to punch people in the face real good.