Alignment, the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Simon Legrande wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
This is just a matter of opinion. I like mine better though
Naturally.
I think you misquoted that TOZ.

I think you're wrong.


What people fail to realize here is that having alignment based mechanical effects and "Anarchy! Everyone will get to play the class they want with no restriction! Clerics will have no downside to their powers!" are not the only options here.

Ignoring for a moment that nobody, not even the devs, think that OOC and RP limitations should inform game balance, there's still the "Must follow the tenets of their god" thing.

You're not going to suddenly have CE Clerics of Iomedae.

Why?

Because Iomedae frowns on the sort of actions that you would have to be committing to be CE in the first place.

But what you WILL start seeing is stuff like the Neutral priest of Iomedae.

He's not particularly interested in the fight against Evil, but the forces of Evil tend to make a mess of things and throw off the balance for everyone. Iomedae gets that, and he respects her for it.

The CG Cleric, who approves of Iomedae's methods and "Let's get shit DONE" attitude, if not the rigidity and sometimes harshness of her faith.

Hell, maybe even the LE Cleric, who doesn't even truly realize he's evil...he fights because he enjoys killing things, and killing Demons and other evils seems like the socially acceptable one. He's the sociopath who really wants to "blend in" by doing good. The police officer who upholds the law because it's what he's been taught he's supposed to do rather than feeling that it's right or wrong himself (this also works for Neutral).

Interesting character concepts opened up by a removal of the alignment restrictions, if not alignment as a whole.


*sigh* If you think having fewer options enhances the game in some way (which I would occasionally agree with but would not here) then that would be a legitimate reason to disagree. My claim isn't informed by objective fact but by my general desire to have the freedom to do things with as few constraints as possible. You're free to deliberately misinterpret my post in order to make you feel better about disagreeing with me, I suppose.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

What people fail to realize here is that having alignment based mechanical effects and "Anarchy! Everyone will get to play the class they want with no restriction! Clerics will have no downside to their powers!" are not the only options here.

Ignoring for a moment that nobody, not even the devs, think that OOC and RP limitations should inform game balance, there's still the "Must follow the tenets of their god" thing.

You're not going to suddenly have CE Clerics of Iomedae.

Why?

Because Iomedae frowns on the sort of actions that you would have to be committing to be CE in the first place.

But what you WILL start seeing is stuff like the Neutral priest of Iomedae.

He's not particularly interested in the fight against Evil, but the forces of Evil tend to make a mess of things and throw off the balance for everyone. Iomedae gets that, and he respects her for it.

The CG Cleric, who approves of Iomedae's methods and "Let's get s$!$ DONE" attitude, if not the rigidity and sometimes harshness of her faith.

Hell, maybe even the LE Cleric, who doesn't even truly realize he's evil...he fights because he enjoys killing things, and killing Demons and other evils seems like the socially acceptable one. He's the sociopath who really wants to "blend in" by doing good. The police officer who upholds the law because it's what he's been taught he's supposed to do rather than feeling that it's right or wrong himself (this also works for Neutral).

Interesting character concepts opened up by a removal of the alignment restrictions, if not alignment as a whole.

You say interesting character concepts, I say terrible character concepts. It dilutes the very ideals that Iomedae stands for, and makes no sense why she would grant these people powers in Her name.

If a player wants to be Lawful Evil, and say he's a champion of Iomedae he has plenty of choices that aren't Clerics or Paladins (who are powered by being true to the tenets of their Church or Oaths). You can play an Oracle, who believes he's fighting the good fight, but Iomedae has cursed him for his hubris. Or perhaps a Chaotic Good fighter, who asks Iomedae's blessing on his sword, but his prayers are just hopes and dreams because he has never come close to mastering the discipline Iomedae expects of her followers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
You're free to deliberately misinterpret my post in order to make you feel better about disagreeing with me, I suppose.

And if you can point to where I disagreed with you I'd be impressed.


That was actually a response to Simon. I should have pressed the quote button.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

No worries, I have that problem all the time. :)


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


You say interesting character concepts, I say terrible character concepts. It dilutes the very ideals that Iomedae stands for, and makes no sense why she would grant these people powers in Her name.

It doesn't?

They're acting in her name, and doing her work. It's their attitude that's different. There should be no issue here. It dilutes nothing. They're doing all the same things, but for different reasons.

Like, you know, real people do.

It's what I've always found stupid about Paladins.

"Oh yeah dude we sent you on this big world saving kill an evil lich mission or whatever but, uh, you lied in there somewhere. Man I know I wanted you to like save the world and stuff but jeez I just can't stand lying. Guess the world is f!~%ed, sorry."

The only god who would do that is one who is an incompetent meathead, and yet it's what's written right into the class.

I see no reason to artificially limit characters based on arbitrary lines in teh sand where alignment is concerned.

If it is indeed meant to "inform, not restrict" as EVERYONE who's defended alignment so far has said, then it SHOULDN'T RESTRICT.


Rynjin wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


You say interesting character concepts, I say terrible character concepts. It dilutes the very ideals that Iomedae stands for, and makes no sense why she would grant these people powers in Her name.

It doesn't?

They're acting in her name, and doing her work. It's their attitude that's different. There should be no issue here. It dilutes nothing. They're doing all the same things, but for different reasons.

Like, you know, real people do.

It's what I've always found stupid about Paladins.

"Oh yeah dude we sent you on this big world saving kill an evil lich mission or whatever but, uh, you lied in there somewhere. Man I know I wanted you to like save the world and stuff but jeez I just can't stand lying. Guess the world is f#**ed, sorry."

The only god who would do that is one who is an incompetent meathead, and yet it's what's written right into the class.

I see no reason to artificially limit characters based on arbitrary lines in teh sand where alignment is concerned.

If it is indeed meant to "inform, not restrict" as EVERYONE who's defended alignment so far has said, then it SHOULDN'T RESTRICT.

First, you are presuming that gods just think exactly like more powerful humans. Probably a mistake. Second, if you are acting in a way antithetical to her philosophies how are you truly 'doing her work'?


RDM42 wrote:

First, you are presuming that gods just think exactly like more powerful humans. Probably a mistake.

It would be a mistake if that weren't exactly how gods were presented in this setting.

Not even counting the fact that Iomedae WAS a human.

RDM42 wrote:

Second, if you are acting in a way antithetical to her philosophies how are you truly 'doing her work'?

How are you acting in a way antithetical to her philosophies?

You are not required, as a Cleric, to follow every single tenet your god has put down to the letter. That's why it's "grossly violate the Code of Conduct" and not merely "violate".

Say I'm a CG Iomedean.

I hunt evil and put it to the sword.

I am honorable.

I am NOT going to put my code of honor above doing the right thing.

In most ways, you're the perfect Iomedean.

In one way you don't perfectly lie up.

Why is this an issue? It already exists with the "one step rule" (you really think an LN Iomedean gives a shit about the Good portion?).


If Solomon can be a polygamous lecher who writes erotic poetry for Gentiles and still receive divination powers then I don't really see why Iomedae couldn't tolerate a demon hunter who hunts demons for the sake of balance rather than a general desire for righteousness and purity.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is starting to sound less about the alignment system and more like, my GM bent me with mechanics and I don't want them to have that power so lets remove alignment. Still not convinced.


Pan wrote:
This thread is starting to sound less about the alignment system and more like, my GM bent me with mechanics and I don't want them to have that power so lets remove alignment. Still not convinced.

The burden should be on defending the purpose of the alignment system when morality and response to authority is far more complex than a base spectrum that completely fuzzy in the margins. We don't measure characters on their viewpoints regarding anything else, why create base metacategories which have nothing to do with real life experience. I have no problems with paladins creating codes and require a very broad adherence to deity worship, but ultimately alignment serves no purpose and creates tropy repetitive characters. (e.g., chaotic jackass; lawful boring).


Also very relevant: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

First, you are presuming that gods just think exactly like more powerful humans. Probably a mistake.

It would be a mistake if that weren't exactly how gods were presented in this setting.

Not even counting the fact that Iomedae WAS a human.

RDM42 wrote:

Second, if you are acting in a way antithetical to her philosophies how are you truly 'doing her work'?

How are you acting in a way antithetical to her philosophies?

You are not required, as a Cleric, to follow every single tenet your god has put down to the letter. That's why it's "grossly violate the Code of Conduct" and not merely "violate".

Say I'm a CG Iomedean.

I hunt evil and put it to the sword.

I am honorable.

I am NOT going to put my code of honor above doing the right thing.

In most ways, you're the perfect Iomedean.

In one way you don't perfectly lie up.

Why is this an issue? It already exists with the "one step rule" (you really think an LN Iomedean gives a s$&% about the Good portion?).

But you haven't lived up to the discipline she expects of her clerics. See, you can be a fighter, or a bard, or any one of a dozen other classes that aren't clerics or paladins. But you can't be a cleric of Iomedae, because you haven't lived up to the ideals she expects. Cayden Cailean though, he isn't nearly as strict and he'd happily party with you bro, heck even Sarenrae understands that Good outweighs law sometimes.

A cleric of Iomedae though, she wants you to balance compassion and discipline, love and chastity, justice and mercy. Iomedae also understands that sometimes you'll fail, but you are trying to live up to her ideals and that means something too. That's why you can be Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good and still benefit from Her power.

Also, a Paladin doesn't lie, he finds another way. That's the ideal you have to live up to. Also, you will at times fail, because you didn't see another choice because you are mortal and fallible. BEHOLD. Paladins are the hardest class to play, AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE FUN, because you can be a barbarian, or a ranger, or a fighter and kill things with a sword. But a Paladin tempers Law with Good and doesn't see that as a contradiction.


Jaelithe wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Solomon can be a polygamous lecher who writes erotic poetry for Gentiles and still receive divination powers then I don't really see why Iomedae couldn't tolerate a demon hunter who hunts demons for the sake of balance rather than a general desire for righteousness and purity.
Let's not go here.

And last I checked Iomedae was Iomadae and in fact was not the deity of Solomon, so why is that example remotely relevant?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
This thread is starting to sound less about the alignment system and more like, my GM bent me with mechanics and I don't want them to have that power so lets remove alignment.

I'd say that's what this thread always sounded like.


RDM42 wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Solomon can be a polygamous lecher who writes erotic poetry for Gentiles and still receive divination powers then I don't really see why Iomedae couldn't tolerate a demon hunter who hunts demons for the sake of balance rather than a general desire for righteousness and purity.
Let's not go here.

And last I checked Iomedae was Iomadae and in fact was not the deity of Solomon, so why is that example remotely relevant?

Heh. Had second thoughts about bothering with that five seconds after I posted it, but the Flash caught me.


Rynjin wrote:
If it is indeed meant to "inform, not restrict" as EVERYONE who's defended alignment so far has said, then it SHOULDN'T RESTRICT.

The paladin is proof that alignment is intended to restrict. Additonally, the fact that the paladin is a mechanically superior option to similar martial classes without alignment restrictions indicates that the alignment restriction is intended for balance so I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that EVERYONE believes alignment should "inform, not restrict"; the devs obviously don't.

I'm also not sure why another person's abiding dislike of the alignment system requires the rules of the entire game be changed. Encumbrance is often disregarded at many tables and my group did not use it for years. I don't recall any threads talking about how awful encumbrance is and how badly it needs to be removed from the game though. If you don't like alignment, don't use alignment but there's no reason to take it from the rest of us who either have no problem with or actually appreciate its inclusion.


Rynjin ...
It INFORMS you of what behaviors your deity will not tolerate without stripping you of your powers.

Shadow Lodge

born_of_fire wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
If it is indeed meant to "inform, not restrict" as EVERYONE who's defended alignment so far has said, then it SHOULDN'T RESTRICT.
The paladin is proof that alignment is intended to restrict.

No, the paladin code does that, not alignment.


TOZ wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
If it is indeed meant to "inform, not restrict" as EVERYONE who's defended alignment so far has said, then it SHOULDN'T RESTRICT.
The paladin is proof that alignment is intended to restrict.
No, the paladin code does that, not alignment.

If that were true there would be no threads complaining about alignment restrictions on the paladin and there would be all sorts of threads complaining about the code restrictions of not only paladins but also cavaliers, samurai and any other classes restricted by a code.

This brings up some interesting points: why are threads about code restrictions not nearly as common as ones about alignment restrictions? What is so different about code restrictions and alignment restrictions that one gets complained about and the other doesn't? And if alignments were removed from the game, would codes be next on the chopping block? If not, then why?


Rynjin wrote:

But what you WILL start seeing is stuff like the Neutral priest of Iomedae.

He's not particularly interested in the fight against Evil, but the forces of Evil tend to make a mess of things and throw off the balance for everyone. Iomedae gets that, and he respects her for it.

The CG Cleric, who approves of Iomedae's methods and "Let's get s~#$ DONE" attitude, if not the rigidity and sometimes harshness of her faith.

I don't think it works that way, because in both cases, the priests would be far more attracted to other gods altogether. The former would be far more likely to throw in his lot with Abadar, while the latter is more likely to follow Cayden Cailien.

This is, IMO, the real point of the "Within One Step" limitation. Rules in an RPG often have to be looked at in two ways: Their mechanical benefit to the rule, and what they represent in the "Real Life" of the game. In the case of Clerical Alignment Restrictions, it's less a matter of "If you worship this Deity you have to act this way", and more "If you don't believe in this, why would you serve that Deity?"

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


There is no way to account for the infintie number of decisions that are going to come up during gaming. The current descriptions are fine I dont want to check charts constantly while playing. I trust my fellow players and myself to act as arbitors based on what is currently in the rule book. You are better off ignoring alignment if your game cant function without specific answers provided by the rulebook.

Not every decision but it would help imo.

And no I don't trust my fellow gamers to do the right thing because sometimes they don't want to do the right thing. I have played in one too many D&D sessions where players take a good alignment then do the exact opposite. As I have played in many games where alignments were roleplayed properly. As a DM if you take a certain alignment it means you roleplay it. No exceptions. If you take Lawful Good and your playing Lawful evil I'm going to call you out on it at the end of the game. Either one plays lawful good properly or switches to lawful evil. It's not to say I follow it by the book. I do give my players lots of leeway. No Paladins falling for the most minor infractions in my games. Yet if your going around killing babies on purpose then your evil. It's one thing if it happens by mistake or if your cursed. If your targeting innocents on purpose it's not even up for debate at my table.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That doesn't stop the 9Int guy from taking a level in wizard. It just means he can't cast spells normally.

It would be fascinating if the char made it work somehow though.


SAMAS wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

But what you WILL start seeing is stuff like the Neutral priest of Iomedae.

He's not particularly interested in the fight against Evil, but the forces of Evil tend to make a mess of things and throw off the balance for everyone. Iomedae gets that, and he respects her for it.

The CG Cleric, who approves of Iomedae's methods and "Let's get s~#$ DONE" attitude, if not the rigidity and sometimes harshness of her faith.

I don't think it works that way, because in both cases, the priests would be far more attracted to other gods altogether. The former would be far more likely to throw in his lot with Abadar, while the latter is more likely to follow Cayden Cailien.

This is, IMO, the real point of the "Within One Step" limitation. Rules in an RPG often have to be looked at in two ways: Their mechanical benefit to the rule, and what they represent in the "Real Life" of the game. In the case of Clerical Alignment Restrictions, it's less a matter of "If you worship this Deity you have to act this way", and more "If you don't believe in this, why would you serve that Deity?"

Cayden Cailean and Abadar are FAR different from Iomedae to the point that people who agree with Iomedae to any great extent (which honestly is at the very least can be any Good character) may not associate as much with Cayden Cailean, and Abadar isn't anywhere near like that.

Iomedae is the Righteous Fury god, taking the fight to evil and stamping it out wherever it is.

All kinds of people can get behind that, not just LG, NG, and LN.

Cayden Cailean is more the generic adventurer's god, or god of freedom fighters. He attracts a different crowd irregardless of alignment.

Abadar is the God of Taxes, pretty much (yes yes, civilization and travel and such too, but you get what I mean). A TN character who wanted to make a difference in maintaining the balance by wiping out evil would have no reason to worship Abadar (though wiping out evil to maintain the advancement of civilization, perhaps, or maybe even because they're getting paid).

All the gods have some bits that are alignment specific...but the majority of their tenets are pretty widely applicable to more than a small set of alignments, Iomedae, Sarenrae, Cayden Cailean, and the majority of the Good gods in general especially.


Rynjin wrote:
SAMAS wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

But what you WILL start seeing is stuff like the Neutral priest of Iomedae.

He's not particularly interested in the fight against Evil, but the forces of Evil tend to make a mess of things and throw off the balance for everyone. Iomedae gets that, and he respects her for it.

The CG Cleric, who approves of Iomedae's methods and "Let's get s~#$ DONE" attitude, if not the rigidity and sometimes harshness of her faith.

I don't think it works that way, because in both cases, the priests would be far more attracted to other gods altogether. The former would be far more likely to throw in his lot with Abadar, while the latter is more likely to follow Cayden Cailien.

This is, IMO, the real point of the "Within One Step" limitation. Rules in an RPG often have to be looked at in two ways: Their mechanical benefit to the rule, and what they represent in the "Real Life" of the game. In the case of Clerical Alignment Restrictions, it's less a matter of "If you worship this Deity you have to act this way", and more "If you don't believe in this, why would you serve that Deity?"

Cayden Cailean and Abadar are FAR different from Iomedae to the point that people who agree with Iomedae to any great extent (which honestly is at the very least can be any Good character) may not associate as much with Cayden Cailean, and Abadar isn't anywhere near like that.

Iomedae is the Righteous Fury god, taking the fight to evil and stamping it out wherever it is.

All kinds of people can get behind that, not just LG, NG, and LN.

Cayden Cailean is more the generic adventurer's god, or god of freedom fighters. He attracts a different crowd irregardless of alignment.

Abadar is the God of Taxes, pretty much (yes yes, civilization and travel and such too, but you get what I mean). A TN character who wanted to make a difference in maintaining the balance by wiping out evil would have no reason to worship Abadar (though wiping out evil to maintain the advancement...

Yes they absolutely could get behind it. But they wouldn't receive magical gifts from Iomedae for it if they didn't get behind it in her way, or something that at least was considered reasonably close to her own sense of morals and ethics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That doesn't stop the 9Int guy from taking a level in wizard. It just means he can't cast spells normally.
It would be fascinating if the char made it work somehow though.

UMD is a wonderful thing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That doesn't stop the 9Int guy from taking a level in wizard. It just means he can't cast spells normally.
It would be fascinating if the char made it work somehow though.
UMD is a wonderful thing.

In which case why is he not just playing a different class with UMD instead of a wizard without spells that uses wands?

Shadow Lodge

RDM42 wrote:
In which case why is he not just playing a different class with UMD instead of a wizard without spells that uses wands?

An interesting question, no? Maybe you should try it and find us an answer.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It also sounds to me like part of the problem is moral relativism, and that the idea that morality might be fixed inhibits character creation with the system.

I would argue that morality isn't relative, and in that way the alignment system very closely mimics reality, even if it is typically flawed to a massive extreme in practice.


RDM42 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That doesn't stop the 9Int guy from taking a level in wizard. It just means he can't cast spells normally.
It would be fascinating if the char made it work somehow though.
UMD is a wonderful thing.

In which case why is he not just playing a different class with UMD instead of a wizard without spells that uses wands?

Because it would be hilarious. Dumping int, taking wiz and relying upon UMD, feats and a high charisma is a very amusing way to go about it.


Davor wrote:

It also sounds to me like part of the problem is moral relativism, and that the idea that morality might be fixed inhibits character creation with the system.

I would argue that morality isn't relative, and in that way the alignment system very closely mimics reality, even if it is typically flawed to a massive extreme in practice.

Yep, I think you are really on to something here.

A relativist who believes there is no evil will have real problem with a fantasy world where evil is clear and can be detected.

As a dm I've run evil many different ways, but it exists. There is no wishy washiness or excusing real evil. The players have even taken on evil npcs with the intention to redeem them. One went from CE to CN with an intense loyalty to the group (so became quite reliable, wanted to do the heroic thing, but was quite chaotic and somewhat dark at times). If they had been a little more driven in adjusting his alignment, they could have made him CG, but they didn't quite make it.

Course, in this world, his sins and tremendous crimes (guy was based off Theon Greyjoy, if he had been a bit more successful and not been tortured, but had gone on the run) were not forgotten. So even though he left evil behind (mostly), there were people still hunting him, including paladins and their pals connected to a celestial league viewing justice as vengeance. Therin the Archer would no longer ping as evil, but for those with a record of his deeds (kept on a demiplane), he wouldn't need to for them to attack him. Therefore I threw in a fair bit of complexity, with change possible but truly major sins never actually forgotten and connected to the very soul and celestial record of a person. For those that went completely dark they couldn't convert or jump alignments and be entirely in the clear. They could adjust alignment through rp and player influence, but they could not be rid of their marks of Cain unless they were slain.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i can't stand the idea that a characters hard earned class features can be revoked by the dungeon master at any moment. if a god is angry, the god should send level appropriate enemies to deal with the cleric, using their divine military resources as appropriate. stripping powers is a lousy consequence that would merely lead to the player being required to make a new character, sending agents of the faith out to apprehend the herectic and sending an inquisition to capture, interrogate and convert them, would be a more fitting consequence. not that an entire army would attack this character at once, but have say, squads of inquisitors whom see the character as a threat in any appropriate settlement whom may have a chance to stop the unorthodox cleric and give the cleric a chance to bypass them. in other words, limit a deities power over the world.

Again, you can't design a game system on the theory that it will protect you from a gamemaster's malice. That's not only the wrong way or reason to design a game, it simply flat out won't work. Within the standard game, I can design a spectrum of consequences to discipline erring clerics or Paladins beyond the "I turn your class off answer." Because I do MY job as the DM which is to fill in the chinks beyond where the rules specifically cover.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i can't stand the idea that a characters hard earned class features can be revoked by the dungeon master at any moment. if a god is angry, the god should send level appropriate enemies to deal with the cleric, using their divine military resources as appropriate. stripping powers is a lousy consequence that would merely lead to the player being required to make a new character, sending agents of the faith out to apprehend the herectic and sending an inquisition to capture, interrogate and convert them, would be a more fitting consequence. not that an entire army would attack this character at once, but have say, squads of inquisitors whom see the character as a threat in any appropriate settlement whom may have a chance to stop the unorthodox cleric and give the cleric a chance to bypass them. in other words, limit a deities power over the world.
Again, you can't design a game system on the theory that it will protect you from a gamemaster's malice. That's not only the wrong way or reason to design a game, it simply flat out won't work. Within the standard game, I can design a spectrum of consequences to discipline erring clerics or Paladins beyond the "I turn your class off answer." Because I do MY job as the DM which is to fill in the chinks beyond where the rules specifically cover.

Yeah...any argument that involves treating the GM as an adversary is shaky as hell. If the GM feels like screwing you, you're screwed. There are some indie games where the power balance is more equal...but Pathfinder isn't one of them and this kind of change won't effect that balance of power at all.

And stripping a Cleric of their powers doesn't make them make a new character, it makes them find a new God to grant them powers...which can be quite fun, depending.


Rynjin wrote:
SAMAS wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

But what you WILL start seeing is stuff like the Neutral priest of Iomedae.

He's not particularly interested in the fight against Evil, but the forces of Evil tend to make a mess of things and throw off the balance for everyone. Iomedae gets that, and he respects her for it.

The CG Cleric, who approves of Iomedae's methods and "Let's get s~#$ DONE" attitude, if not the rigidity and sometimes harshness of her faith.

I don't think it works that way, because in both cases, the priests would be far more attracted to other gods altogether. The former would be far more likely to throw in his lot with Abadar, while the latter is more likely to follow Cayden Cailien.

This is, IMO, the real point of the "Within One Step" limitation. Rules in an RPG often have to be looked at in two ways: Their mechanical benefit to the rule, and what they represent in the "Real Life" of the game. In the case of Clerical Alignment Restrictions, it's less a matter of "If you worship this Deity you have to act this way", and more "If you don't believe in this, why would you serve that Deity?"

Cayden Cailean and Abadar are FAR different from Iomedae to the point that people who agree with Iomedae to any great extent (which honestly is at the very least can be any Good character) may not associate as much with Cayden Cailean, and Abadar isn't anywhere near like that.

Iomedae is the Righteous Fury god, taking the fight to evil and stamping it out wherever it is.

All kinds of people can get behind that, not just LG, NG, and LN.

Sure they do. They just do it while following Cayden Cailian, Sarenae, Abadar, Desna, Torag, and other Good or Nonevil deities. Iomedae is not the only choice for those choose to fight the good fight as their calling.

Quote:
Abadar is the God of Taxes, pretty much (yes yes, civilization and travel and such too, but you get what I mean). A TN character who wanted to make a difference in maintaining the balance by wiping out evil would have no reason to worship Abadar (though wiping out evil to maintain the advancement...

but that brings me back to my original point: If you are more concerned with Balance than with Good as a reason to fight Evil, why are you worshipping Iomedae, a Goddess who clearly wishes to tip the scales the other way?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What does changing the alignment of a Paladin have to do with their code of conduct?
You could totally get rid of the LG requirement, but their CoC would still require them to act that way, regardless.

So, what do you gain? Maybe using the Paladin as an example of why alignments aren't a good idea, is not a good idea either.


Well my lawful good monk is not running into any problems. Act like a cool martial artist, utter famous lines and terrible English "your kung fu style very good" with really strange grammatical rules alongside pithy pieces of wisdom and I can get away with doing pretty much whatever I want, and make whatever choice fits with being a martial arts hero. I could quote Laozi, or Confucius, Bruce Lee or any number of Hong Kong action heroes. LG is pretty free over here.

Because I have a cool dm who knows the game is about fun, not punishment. Trying to reduce a character down to only a few authorised reactions is folly, and makes them have less character, not more. The law vs. violence debate has come up, some see it as unlawful to bash evil, chaos or neutral evil in the face and into submission or brutally murder agents of evil. I care not because as an LG monk I say "let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like".

After all, if you don't flow you can't flurry.

Liberty's Edge

I do think some sort of alignment needs top be enforced. Or it ends up turning into a free for all at the table. I have played in games where Paladins are properly roleplayed. In some where thy are either lawful stupid or dirty harry with a shield and sword. I was at odds with one gaming group one time because they torched a hobgoblin nursery without any hesistation. I refused to do so. Being told "well they would probably grow up to be the enemy " was simply imo not playing in character or very heroic. Nor is playing a Lawful Good character who has tries to to haggle a fee to help someone.

I'm not saying alignment has to be a strait jacket in terms of roleplaying. There is a reason tit's so tied into the D&D. If one wants to play himself at the gaming table I encourage it. I also enforce a alignment if a player decides to take a class whose abilites are tied to a alignment. I have a barbarian cohort who at the start of the fight was trying was on top of a stone hut trying to break his way in to get at a enemy inside. I realized that was not proper barbarian behavior. Stopped. Ran to the edge of the hut jumped off and macked a Vrock off the side of the head. I took a AOO yet it just seemed more in character.

I'm starting to notice a trend in the D&D gaming community. First low attributes are not meant to be penalties as they can be role played away. Alignment nah I don't feel like playing one it gets in the way of roleplaying. There are plenty of other fantasy rpg out on the market if one does not want to play within the restrictions of D&D. Such as Fate. I think many gamers here would like it's narrative and freeform nature.


I don't think people want to play themselves, but they do want to play a fun character reacting to a situation however they wish and often involving violence so as to unlock the fun through the killing.

There is a great joy in gaming to just killing things and using those powers, and some people want that type of escapism and unconstrained violent impulses.

If the good char does some bad, they don't care, they were just trying to have fun.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

I don't think people want to play themselves, but they do want to play a fun character reacting to a situation however they wish and often involving violence so as to unlock the fun through the killing.

There is a great joy in gaming to just killing things and using those powers, and some people want that type of escapism and unconstrained violent impulses.

If the good char does some bad, they don't care, they were just trying to have fun.

The murder hobo forum is down that way 3 doors to the right.


Last game just a few hours ago. We had our psion try suggestion on two party members.

Why? Well the player wanted to use their powers more, and the two that were targeted had just come across rings of mind shielding, so he felt we were stepping on his toes and getting too powerful. So now it is about flexing and showing off the power, that he has not fallen behind and he wants to have some fun and mischief at our expense.

The attack and fun impulse was not quite being sated, and the treasure made the player feel a bit weak and left behind, so now this almost went to a full on combat. It turned into good rp and the game is most certainly up for the psion, but here alignment (good and neutral party) was far less relevant, the player just wanted to have some fun and is lashing out and using those powers upon the party instead of the foes (we clearly need more foes testing us and providing a challenge and the rewards of fun through killing them).

Liberty's Edge

There is nothing wrong with having fun. Up until it just becomes a free for all. To use my previous Paladin example the BBEG hired guards to protct him from the Paladin. Th guards disliked working for the BBEG as they were basically good men and women hired to work for a scumbag. The paladin assumed that since they were working for the BBEG the had to be evil. No detect evil was used. No attempt at diplomacy. My subtle and not so subtle hints about the guards were ignored by the player. The BBEG got away. All the guards were killed and the Paladin fell. He did have fun he also realized he went too far. He ended up atoning for his mistake yet was never welcome in town again. Was considered a mad dog by the townsfolk for a very long time. As some of the guards that he killed had families.

For better or worse D&D has alignment tied into some elements of the game. One can't just ignore that just to have fun. One can have fun within the rules of the game. Before 3E came along we played a lot of 2E. Eventually we tired of the restrictions of 2E and switched to other fantasy rpgs. We could have hacked 2E into the rpg we wanted we just chose the easy way out.


Lol, that is a bit tricky actually. Ha ha, mad dog maverick paladin. Wonderful.

Did the guards try to warn the paladin off or negotiate (also giving their boss time to escape?).

I am reminded of good natured Carlos the mercenary in the Resident Evil Books. A good guy working for the worst side because of, well, a paycheck and a Latino has to eat, especially one from a very poor background.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment restrictions limit characters to the same generic tropes. and those tropes, tend to be quite repetitive. either with a paladin, you end up with another generic wannabe Sir Roland under a different name, or somebody trying to be a fantasy Dirty Harry with a longsword and shield, high saves and swift action self heals.

Neither the code of conduct nor the Alignment Restrictions balance the class, and some people want the mechanics of the paladin without the alignment restriction, not because the paladin is overpowered or anything, but because it has an appealing set of balanced mechanics for most martial characters, balanced with the ranger and barbarian. the other 2 big martials of the tier. fighter needs to be brought up to their level.

in fact, before we reference the paladin again, lets look at the barbarians restriction to can't be lawful. who says a law abiding farmhand or scholar can't have anger issues? whose to say a lawful ascetic samurai-like character can't learn a form of Serenity based combat style with similar mechanical benefits? whose to say a legalistic fey youth can't become so cheerful and hyper, that the manic cheer increases her combat prowess?

does the zen samurai swordsman suddenly lose access to his serenity based trance for adopting a code of honor? does the farmhand lose his anger issues for abiding by the laws of his land? does the fey youth, a daughter of a fey lawyer, lose her manic cheeriness by being the law abiding daughter of a fey lawyer? i mean they are all reskinned barbarians that all make sense with a lawfully aligned in some manner.


SAMAS wrote:


but that brings me back to my original point: If you are more concerned with Balance than with Good as a reason to fight Evil, why are you worshipping Iomedae, a Goddess who clearly wishes to tip the scales the other way?

Likely because you believe the scales are tipped in evil's direction as-is and none of the gods within one step of your alignment are aggressive about it.

And you're probably right, given the alarming frequency of world ending plots and the armies of Fiends that lie in wait.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I'm not saying alignment has to be a strait jacket in terms of roleplaying. There is a reason tit's so tied into the D&D. If one wants to play himself at the gaming table I encourage it. I also enforce a alignment if a player decides to take a class whose abilites are tied to a alignment. I have a barbarian cohort who at the start of the fight was trying was on top of a stone hut trying to break his way in to get at a enemy inside. I realized that was not proper barbarian behavior. Stopped. Ran to the edge of the hut jumped off and macked a Vrock off the side of the head. I took a AOO yet it just seemed more in character.

Best typo of the week. :)

On topic, I've been playing without alignment for six years (4e), and have yet to see any 'free for all' problems. Players who write 'Good' on their sheet (despite me reminding them that it doesn't mean anything) still play heroic good guys. I did have one group of utterly amoral mercanary PCs, because that's what everyone wanted, and I was cool with it.

Take that for what you will.


Rynjin wrote:
SAMAS wrote:


but that brings me back to my original point: If you are more concerned with Balance than with Good as a reason to fight Evil, why are you worshipping Iomedae, a Goddess who clearly wishes to tip the scales the other way?

Likely because you believe the scales are tipped in evil's direction as-is and none of the gods within one step of your alignment are aggressive about it.

And you're probably right, given the alarming frequency of world ending plots and the armies of Fiends that lie in wait.

so true. there are so many world ending plots and such massive and powerful fiendish armies are quite common, Iomedae needs all the paladins she can get to smite the fiendish armies, and well, Chaotic Good or Lawful Neutral Paladins with a strong dislike for fiends, should be just as acceptable as their lawful good counterparts, even if the Lawful Neutral Ones were too disciplined to act independantly and the Chaotic Good Ones are too impulsive and independant to order around in their fight against demonkind.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
memorax wrote:
I'm not saying alignment has to be a strait jacket in terms of roleplaying. There is a reason tit's so tied into the D&D. If one wants to play himself at the gaming table I encourage it. I also enforce a alignment if a player decides to take a class whose abilites are tied to a alignment. I have a barbarian cohort who at the start of the fight was trying was on top of a stone hut trying to break his way in to get at a enemy inside. I realized that was not proper barbarian behavior. Stopped. Ran to the edge of the hut jumped off and macked a Vrock off the side of the head. I took a AOO yet it just seemed more in character.

Best typo of the week. :)

On topic, I've been playing without alignment for six years (4e), and have yet to see any 'free for all' problems. Players who write 'Good' on their sheet (despite me reminding them that it doesn't mean anything) still play heroic good guys. I did have one group of utterly amoral mercanary PCs, because that's what everyone wanted, and I was cool with it.

Take that for what you will.

even in 3.5e D20 or PF, a lack of alignment isn't guaranteed to cause 'Free for All' problems. players whom want to roleplay a heroic good guy will end up roleplaying a heroic good guy because they want to, not because their class restrictions tell them too. at the same time, if a player wanted to roleplay a complete sadistic psychopath, they were going to do it no matter what their class would tell them too, and would channel it in any character they would have played. what TS proves, is that a lack of alignment restrictions will gives players more freedom to play the character they want to play with the skillset they envision their character possessing, not sacrificing the alignment they want wanted to play to qualify for the skillset they envisioned. it won't be a free for all like people say. in fact, without the metagame construct of alignment as a factor. players will be less inclined to feel shoehorned into playing the same old tropes, and will play the character they want to play unsuppressed, which i think matters a whole lot more than a DMs desire to reign in evil characters by being able to turn their class off. if the players wanted to be a guild of amoral bloodthirsty mercenaries, then forcing them into a campaign where they are expected to defy their characters' natures by being good and upright, saving lives rather than taking them, goes against the players.


Rynjin wrote:
SAMAS wrote:


but that brings me back to my original point: If you are more concerned with Balance than with Good as a reason to fight Evil, why are you worshipping Iomedae, a Goddess who clearly wishes to tip the scales the other way?
Likely because you believe the scales are tipped in evil's direction as-is and none of the gods within one step of your alignment are aggressive about it.

That's why you ally with Iomedae(and her followers). Why you work with them on their mission. That kind of thing does not require worship. Trying to worship a deity that you only agree with on one relatively minor thing (actively fight evil) and strongly disagree with on everything else is just stupid.

151 to 200 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment, the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.