Is it Cayden?
He's a guy who is very lazy, hates to get up and do anything. So he sits at his cart all day, drinking alcohol, never enough to get fully billigenerate drunk, but enough to always be tipsy. When available he doesn't mind making passes at females. He complains all the time about how everything is troublesome, a pain, or how he is only human.
What alignment is he?
You've listed a series of character flaws (lazy, borderline alcoholic, lecher, complainer), but nothing that actually defines his alignment. If I had to give him an alignment based on what you said I'd be inclined to say True Neutral, but you could probably make a good argument for any alignment.
Coincidentally I think that character description would make for a very interesting paladin.
|
He's a guy who is very lazy, hates to get up and do anything. So he sits at his cart all day, drinking alcohol, never enough to get fully billigenerate drunk, but enough to always be tipsy. When available he doesn't mind making passes at females. He complains all the time about how everything is troublesome, a pain, or how he is only human.
What alignment is he?
You've listed a series of character flaws (lazy, borderline alcoholic, lecher, complainer), but nothing that actually defines his alignment. If I had to give him an alignment based on what you said I'd be inclined to say True Neutral, but you could probably make a good argument for any alignment.
Coincidentally I think that character description would make for a very interesting paladin.
Well, often people tend to think that if your character has flaws like this, that they are chaotic.
Flawed = chaotic
Perfect = lawful.
Course I could be saying this stuff to throw people off the trail of the obviously chaotic character.. I mean he drinks! And he's lazy! But then Maybe I'm throwin you off by point out that I'm throwing you off by throwing you off?
Luke Skywalker = He is a rebel. Rebels are Chaotic. So Luke is Chaotic. but Luke is Jedi. Jedi are lawful. So.. Luke is Lawful? Luke is Good guy,cause he fight bad guy. Right?
But Society is suppose to determine alignment according to previous comments.. So if Society thinks the Empire is good, and rebels are bad.. then Luke is a bad guy. But we look at him as a good guy, because our point of view shows him fighting against a tyrant.
If a man is a knight, and he kills his king, is the man a bad knight or a good knight? What if the king planed to burn his city down to the ground with fire, with his people still inside of it, the moment the enemy entered. Then is the knight a bad knight or good knight? Honor thy lord, Honor thy father, protect the weak and the innocent.. but how do you follow these commands when they go against each other?
Why should the rules for a roleplaying game rest upon a certain position in moral philosophy, regardless of whether it is correct? That seems really unparsimonious and off-putting to those who disagree with that position.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure everyone deep down agrees with my sense of morality...
Anyone who doesnt is either an
aries that doesnt know any better
taurus whos too stubborn to admit he's wrong
gemini who cant make up his mind
a leo who loves giving advice but has a pathological aversion to taking advice
a virgo who's still trying to sort it out
a libra who gets aroused at the opportunity to argue for the sake of arguing...
a scorpio who's too upset to see things clearly
a capricorn who doesnt believe anything anyone tells them
an aquarius who just likes pretending to disagree for shock value
or a pisces who's prefers that we call him a tiger because he prefers chinese astrology even though everyone KNOWs that system is total cra.....
whats that?
This isnt the astrological stereotyping and trolling website forum?
You sure?
Yeah.... Thats uh.... Yeah... So...... So sorry.
Excuse me....
I'll Just uh.... I'll uh... ummmm.... Yeah... Nevermind... Hmmmmmmmm.
Why should the rules for a roleplaying game rest upon a certain position in moral philosophy, regardless of whether it is correct? That seems really unparsimonious and off-putting to those who disagree with that position.
Probably shouldn't. Step on the toes off other people, especially about morality is definitely off putting. Which is why people get all bothered when you disagree in the case of paladins, monks, etc. and some of us take an extreme and just outright remove systems relating to it, possibly replacing it with our own.
Good vs. evil is a thing though, and a lot of people like it. The guy I complained about a page back loved the idea, but I always found him full of cliché and predictability. He really only wanted a game where the players were good and the bad guys were mustache twirling, obvious, and had very little reason to actually be evil. The downside was the players were held to a standard, and players going for good were held to one I thought was a little insane. Worse was the other players who dog piled on people who suggested being anything but that ideal of goody two shoe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal beef with alignment is that it used the same words as we use when discussing morality in the real world to represent something with no actual, real-world analog.
It seems to me that if people got past the incorrect idea that good-evil in pathfinder was the same as good-evil in the real world, things would be far less contentious. (It's why I actually preferred the focus on law-chaos that used to exist, at least they dont have the same baggage).
I actually like a lot of what the setting has to offer myself. I like most of the gods, many of the cities and countries, and enjoy all the APs I've played or read through so far.
It's the little bits (Alignment as a tangible force in the universe, mostly) that throw me off.
I actually even like Outsiders, but when human Clerics and such radiate a literal "Aura of Evil"...ugh.
I'm actually really thankful that they set up a system that doesnt encourage level dipping. I feel like such things were horrible in d20, got worse in 3.0, became slightly more refined in 3.5 but I still am not fond of level dipping and over 95% of prestige classes... Prestige classes felt like 2e kits. I'm like please no dont introduce an excuse to publish some 15 dollar book full of kits every month... I dont want my system splatty. I know to say in business you gotta make money, but I prefer a constant stream of adventures to a constant stream of 'you know I've always loved paladins, but I dont feel like the system has ever given me an avenue where I could truly explore both my love of paladins and my love for ARMOR MADE OF TURTLES! or some crap...
I have to respect 3.5 for what I would call an amazing effort to make all the prestge bits a tightly regimented trade, though it did have the unfortunate effect of introducing the concept of 'building 20 levels ahead so you didnt accidentlally screw yourself out of a feat 15 levels early because you didnt plan ahead... And I kinda hate that mechanic too...
I'm not a fan of quadratic everything and a dozen bonus types all applying to the same number but it would be a huge change to undo that business.
Well... I find pathfinder went the opposite way actually and discouraged level dipping too much. Makes it harder to make what I want when I can't dip or most prestige classes that claim to do what I need fall short of just being a single class and giving up somethings.
God bless Kirthfinder
There is an alternative to this postmodern crap and that is to make the campaign setting self-consciously not realistic. As a GM, keep the white hats white and the black hats black. Avoid moral ambiguity.
In my campaign:
The gods are real, and influence the world. There is an absolute good and an absolute evil as real palpable forces in the universe. And the tenents of the Good can be learned. (The law/chaos axis is not as big a deal, more like the approach you follow Good or Evil with). Alignment with mechanics is a great way to model that. Much like the Light Side and Dark Side of the force - for many people (NPC classes, and "normals") it isn't a huge thing, but when you start playing around with those forces (become an adventurer) then it starts to become a big deal - even more so if you tie yourself to one or the other (Paladins, clerics, wizards with alignment spells etc).
It works very well for that kind of outlook - so I'd never want it to be dropped from the game. But there should be an option for someone who doesn't like that approach - and that, I think, is the majority of players.
So, how important is the fluff to you? Do you see it as something solid that should be adhered to? If so, why? If not, why not?
I'm mostly to very married to the fluff. It's pretty important to me.
The 'fluff' is what makes things actually interesting to me, and is what inspires me - if I didn't like the fluff, I probably wouldn't bother looking at the mechanics (which is dreadfully boring, AFAIC).
So yeah - absolutely need the fluff. (That's not to say I don't modify things, but fluff is the absolute minimum requirement for me to even bother.)
