Possible repercussions of removing alignment restrictions for Monks

[Zhayne]

Robert Carter 58 wrote:

It seems to me that you have a problem with the alignment system in general. Why not just remove it in your game.

Done that a long time ago.

Think the game system itself should follow the same path. 'Tradition', by itself, is not a sufficient reason to do anything. I have never seen alignment mechanics add anything to a game, and have seen it take a lot away.

I think the game would be much better without it. And thus, I say so.

If they keep alignment as a rules element (rather than a pure roleplaying element), they need to make it absolutely clear, without a shadow of a doubt, what lawful, chaotic, good, and evil mean. As clear as 'attack roll must meet or exceed the target's AC to hit'. Nobody argues that.

Good rules are unambigous and clear; obviously, alignment is anything but.

[Malwing]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Espy Kismet wrote:

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.

My moral code says that nothing taken from nature can be owned and thus shoplifting is fighting back against the tyranny of property laws. This is code and tradition of my order and to actually respect property is immoral to me. Therefore I'm Lawful....

[LordofBacon]

Zhayne wrote:

LordofBacon wrote:

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.

Nor do you have to be a Monk to punch people really good. Fighters and Barbarians can also make excellent unarmed combatants. That's what I mean about the system being flexible enough to allow plenty of creative freedom as is. Let's say I want to keep the alignment restrictions on Monks, and I have a player who wants to play a more chaotic unarmed combatant. There are still options for him available. This is basically exactly what you said that Monk[class]=/=monk[concept]. In fact I'm no longer certain where exactly the point of contention lies But I agree about the alignment restriction on the Monk being unnecessary and unhelpful.

[Malwing]

LordofBacon wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

LordofBacon wrote:

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.

Nor do you have to be a Monk to punch people really good. Fighters and Barbarians can also make excellent unarmed combatants. That's what I mean about the system being flexible enough to allow plenty of creative freedom as is. Let's say I want to keep the alignment restrictions on Monks, and I have a player who wants to play a more chaotic unarmed combatant. There are still options for him available. This is basically exactly what you said that Monk[class]=/=monk[concept]. In fact I'm no longer certain where exactly the point of contention lies But I agree about the alignment restriction on the Monk being unnecessary and unhelpful.

Two things that I thought of here;

I can think of one monk ability that signifies that it is Lawful and with the introduction of archetypes a lot of reasons that the Monk concept can easily contradict itself. He went from a specific kind of Kung Fu man to a very broad kind of Martial Artist man. Even the name seems to not really fit.

Also I noticed that the Unarmed fighter archetype allows it to use Elemental Fist. I'm not too sure how I feel about this considering that the Fighter supposedly doesn't have superpowers.

[Espy Kismet]

"why not just remove it in your game"

Well, cause I'm not the DM. DM's tend to be of the mind "Do not give, take away" in other words, If I wanted to play a two headed fire breathing dragon I'd have to ask my DM if he'd allow it.

"Heck no" says the DM.

But, if there were rules for it, like a synthisist summoner, I could easily put together a character who becomes a 2headed firebreathing dragon...

"Well that works." said the DM, unless..

"I don't allow synthisist." Says the DM. And just like that I end up moving on.

Easier to deny, harder to allow. Allowing could open a can of worms up that i'd be totally over powered now as a 2headed fire breathing dragon if the rules for synthist where not there. I might still be, but now the DM can veto instead of trying to rack his brain on how to allow me to play what I wanted.

[Dauntless]

Kudaku wrote:

I have a player who is playing a neutral good character, and wants to take monk levels (master of many styles-archetype). The alignment restriction on Monks (lawful only) prohibits this.

The player is providing good fluff reasoning as to why her character is interested in the archetype, and points out that there's precedence - the Martial Artist archetype ignores the alignment requirement.

There's no real time press since the game is in hiatus for the summer. That said, at the moment I'm inclined to agree with the player and handwave the requirement away.

However, I'd be interested to hear what the Paizo community has to say on the topic - is there any particular reasons why the monk is, or should remain, Lawful-only?

Having read many of the posts here, I thought I would chime in from a real world historical basis. I too am not keen on the lawful restriction, but from a real world historical basis. Yes yes, I know, this is just a game, but the fact is that monks emulate a real world group of people.

In Buddhism, it is true that the Buddha founded a monastic order and stipulated many of the rules of the sangha to follow. But, the actual process of becoming enlightened is a personal one. Lin Chi once said, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". In other words, do not follow blindly. The whole basis of the Buddhas teaching was to doubt.

Look at the Buddha himself. He originally had two teachers, alara kalama and udakka, but while he learned much, he knew there was still more to be learned. So the Buddha went off and discovered enlightenment on his own. In fact, one could argue he was against the strict rules of the ascetics which is why the Buddha called his practice "The middle way". In fact, how the Buddha was enlightened are called Pratyeka Buddhas...Buddhas who become self enlightened. This implies you do not need to follow any outside rules.

The Buddha often had an analogy about his teaching. In one case, he said that the teaching was like a finger pointing to the moon, but many people look at the finger instead of where it points to. In other words the teaching is not a "law" it simply helps. In another analogy, he said that the teaching is like medicine. While you are sick (not awakened) you take the medicine (the teaching). But once you are cured, you stop taking the medicine. This echoes the Taoist teaching (which influenced chan and therefore zen) which says, "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao". This all implies that the truth of law is just another conception and all concepts are false.

To put it another way, the path followed by a monk is a training so that you no longer need to follow the path. Is that law or chaos? It is neither, because such terms are limiting and do not embrace how things are. It is a game convenience to quickly see, oh, this guy prefers order, or this character chafes under rules. I think the real problem with alignments is how black and white they are. There is no gradation of how lawful or chaotic someone is. How do you account for people who are mostly selfish, but when having to choose, does the right thing? The alignment system is too black and white and it makes blanket judgments. Just as it is unfair and racist to make blanket assumptions based on race, I see the same with the alignment system. So I agree that alignments should be used as a descriptive alignment only.

In the end, trying to equate that only lawful characters are disciplined, is a not just oversimplified but a discredit to those who value personal freedom. Enlightenment requires more than discipline, it requires awareness. I think that it was simply something the original game designers felt like it fit, but without having a good knowledge of the actual original basis of the monastic orders and teachings, it is simply just arbitrary.

[LordofBacon]

Zhayne and TriOmegaZero- I'm curious how the Paladin works in your alignment-free system, if he exists at all. I really like Paladins, so it would make me sad if getting rid of alignments meant getting rid of Paladins.

[TriOmegaZero]

Haven't had one yet, but I would just have his smite work on any target. Of course, I might just use the Prestige Paladin with PF updates instead of the core class as well.

[Runehacking]

MrSin wrote:

Happler wrote:

Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line.

Which is why we can all agree on morality and alignment and there are never any threads asking about it ever? I usually prefer flexibility myself, helps make everyone happy.

What an utter chaotic think to say. Now you will never be ale to learn how to punch people and be immune to desease for some reason.

[LordKailas]

Runehacking wrote:

What an utter chaotic think to say. Now you will never be ale to learn how to punch people and be immune to desease for some reason.

I'm not sure that was worth necroing a thread that's been dead for 7 years at this point.

[Artofregicide]

Necromancy is chaotic neutral!

Wheeeeee!