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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

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 see now that we are miles apart on play style. I wouldnt want alignment either if It was as hard coded as you seem to imply here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

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.

No they don't. They remove some tropes. They don't limit you to just a few. There are more varieties of lawful good possible than you could play in a lifetime.


SAMAS wrote:
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.

"Relatively minor thing"...that's basically her whole personality.

Iomedae is not a complex goddess.

And who says he "strongly disagrees" with "everything else"? Certainly not me. Stop putting words in my mouth.

"Not lockstep with all of her tenets" =/= "Strongly disagrees with all but one thing".

People IRL do it all the time. I'm sure no reasonable person is saying that it's "just stupid" a lot of Christians don't feel bad about eating shellfish and having sex in other positions than missionary.

You don't have to 100% agree with everything in your religion to follow that religion. Not even to be a priest of said religion.

Liberty's Edge

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Best typo of the week. :)

Yeah it kind of is lol.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


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.

I will concede with the right group of players one can without alignment. Or by house ruling that it has less of a effect. Again one needs the right group. Maybe I'm a little jaded and have had one too many players who either can't play their alignment properly. Or choose to ignore it and play themselves. Maybe next game I may try without alignments at least at the start. As I would trust my current group.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


I see now that we are miles apart on play style. I wouldnt want alignment either if It was as hard coded as you seem to imply here.

It's called different styles of play. Not everyone plays the same way you do at the table.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Pan wrote:


I see now that we are miles apart on play style. I wouldnt want alignment either if It was as hard coded as you seem to imply here.
It's called different styles of play. Not everyone plays the same way you do at the table.

Yeah, that was what he said.


If Christians were granted powers by their God, eating shellfish and having sex in positions other than missionary might cause their God to revoke those powers. Since the Christian God doesn't grant its followers any powers, this comparison in pretty specious.


born_of_fire wrote:
If Christians were granted powers by their God, eating shellfish and having sex in positions other than missionary might cause their God to revoke those powers. Since the Christian God doesn't grant its followers any powers, this comparison in pretty specious.

He said even trying to WORSHIP said deity would be stupid.

And per the rules on Clerics, no they would not lose the powers. They have to GROSSLY violate their god's Code of Conduct to lose powers.

Unless you worship "The God Of Sex For Procreation Only" it's not going to be an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


Unless you worship "The God Of Sex For Procreation Only" it's not going to be an issue.

Welp..found my next campaign's antagonist.


I really don't care.

The purpose of Alignment for me is as a Roleplaying aid. Would I expand some of the choices if a player talked to me about it? Sure. Do I still think that Alignment should be a thing, yes.

It helps me and others, gives them pointers. If anyone else wants to play without alignment, then they can feel free to. However, my games will still have alignment and alignment restrictions because they make sense to me.

In the end, I think it all comes down to discussing things with your DM, and finding a DM that you can work with, rather than be in an adversarial relationship with. I won't shaft a player immediately, rather I will confirm with them if they want to do this, and inform them of the consequences of their actions, because the world is alive beyond them.

I don't know. Don't really care what goes on beyond my table anyways.


RDM42 wrote:

No they don't. They remove some tropes. They don't limit you to just a few. There are more varieties of lawful good possible than you could play in a lifetime.

lawful good is quite a constricting alignment, most of the varieties you see on lawful good are mutations of the same general variant, the same Variant used by Captain America, Optimus Prime, and both Arthur and Charlemagne's knights. just with maybe profession, personal status and cosmetic details altered here and there. there is nothing interesting about lawful good besides the fact it is the purity sue alignment.

obscure tactical JRPG info but Lawful Good is what Flonne From Disgaea started as before the became Neutral Good due to her desire to redeem the fiendish overlord rather than slay him. her reward for her attempt to redeem the fiendish overlord, is to get turned into a flower by her angelic overlord she once idolized in an act of betrayal by the people of heaven, merely because she tried to Redeem Prince Laharl instead of slay him. and Prince Laharl himself was Half Demon, a Quarter Angel and a Quarter Human, born from a Nephilim whom redeemed a former demonic overlord behind the scenes without her master's permission. Same master punished her too. because she wished to redeem demons, the Angels of that setting wanted to smite her too. Laharl's mother was slain by an angel and the Angels set it up to look like Suicide and judged her guilty for the sin of Suicide as an attempt to cover her murder. Seraph Lamington was the villain of the entire first game and had like 7 forms.


RDM42 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
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.
No they don't. They remove some tropes. They don't limit you to just a few. There are more varieties of lawful good possible than you could play in a lifetime.

RDM42 is correct.

The 'limitations' of which you speak are self-imposed. I've portrayed paladins all my gaming life, and have never played either of the two tropes you mentioned. Nor do the examples you provide particularly bolster your claim.


Jaelithe wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
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.
No they don't. They remove some tropes. They don't limit you to just a few. There are more varieties of lawful good possible than you could play in a lifetime.

RDM42 is correct.

The 'limitations' of which you speak are self-imposed. I've portrayed paladins all my gaming life, and have never played either of the two tropes you mentioned. Nor do the examples you provide particularly bolster your claim.

i have never played lawful good because i have DMs that are really anal about it and enforce an extremely rigid set of archetypes and try to prevent any "creative weaseling". and well, i don't even know how to think like a lawful good person because i am so shaped by modern corporate evils and have difficulty understanding morality.

Chaotic Good i could probably do, neutral good is also achievable with similarly difficult effort, but i can't do lawful good, i just can't be rational and calm enough to play lawful good and if i tried, i would break character very quickly. give me access to anything on the neutral or evil axis, and i could come up with all sorts of ideas that could work with a party, and a few that could help a paladin. even if a bit tolerated.

i just can't maintain a prim and proper morally upright alignment, i am just the wrong guy to RP Captain America or Optimus Prime. a Chaotic Good Warrior and freedom fighter whom wanders the world to offer his assistance to those in need by slaying tyrants and abusive lords to liberate the oppressed for no more than the people can realistically offer, but not completely without reward, sure. i can do something akin to Vash the Stampede. i wouldn't consider him lawful good. essentially, the difference would be made up in favors, but i'm not going to expect 5,000 gold coins from a small shire in the hills, maybe unlimited access to free turnip stew and a free reserved room at the inn every time i visit town, 2,000 gold coins worth of crops to trade as equivalent to cash at the end of the initial mission and a minor weapon upgrade, sure.

essentially, instead of working for massive amounts of coin, i compensate the difference in favors and items the people realistically would possess or could commision in a short amount of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Time for my personal opinion.

I've played enough alignment-less game systems to think it doesn't really have much of an effect on the overall gameplay. People who want to play disruptive jerk characters will do so regardless of alignment. GMs who want to be overly restrictive and controlling will do so regardless, they'll just use different tools for it. At the same time, the fact that I've played and enjoyed many games that don't have any alignment system inclines me to think that it's not a strictly necessary part of roleplaying games or that taking it away results in chaos and anarchy.

Personally, I think alignment is useful for a quick moral/ethical sum-up of a character, but probably shouldn't have too many mechanical effects. In my experience, the more mechanics there are attached the alignment, the easier it is for it to become a straitjacket, and the more otherwise good GMs feel like they need to be the Alignment Police. One of the more depressing GM experiences I had was having a Paladin player who'd obviously suffered under a straitjacket GM at some point, because he was constantly telling himself he couldn't do perfectly reasonable things (like not fall for the obvious trap the bad guy was setting up) without falling and losing his power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bad GM's does not mean you have been victimized by a bad rule. They only mean you have a bad GM.


Rynjin wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
If Christians were granted powers by their God, eating shellfish and having sex in positions other than missionary might cause their God to revoke those powers. Since the Christian God doesn't grant its followers any powers, this comparison in pretty specious.

He said even trying to WORSHIP said deity would be stupid.

And per the rules on Clerics, no they would not lose the powers. They have to GROSSLY violate their god's Code of Conduct to lose powers.

Unless you worship "The God Of Sex For Procreation Only" it's not going to be an issue.

You have no idea how dear not eating shellfish is to the Christian God because only dead people get to find out. All those Christians who thought shellfish was not a big deal might have been in for quite a surprise when they met their maker.

The point is that the Christian God does not communicate with its followers in any way that is comparable to the gods in PFRPG so nobody really knows whether they are pissing it off the way you will know with the gods in the game. That is why the comparison is specious.

The Exchange

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i have never played lawful good because i have DMs that are really anal about it and enforce an extremely rigid set of archetypes and try to prevent any "creative weaseling"...

Well, at least consider the notion that part of the problem lies in the interpretation the GMs have been giving the alignment system, not the alignment system itself. Honestly, I share some of your difficulties with portraying Lawful Good: it's a common literary meme, but to be honest even most characters who "must choose between what's honorable and what's right" make their choice in the course of a single movie/book/whatever, while a Pathfinder LG character must keep on deciding indefinitely (or change alignments.)


Chengar Qordath wrote:

Time for my personal opinion.

I've played enough alignment-less game systems to think it doesn't really have much of an effect on the overall gameplay. People who want to play disruptive jerk characters will do so regardless of alignment. GMs who want to be overly restrictive and controlling will do so regardless, they'll just use different tools for it. At the same time, the fact that I've played and enjoyed many games that don't have any alignment system inclines me to think that it's not a strictly necessary part of roleplaying games or that taking it away results in chaos and anarchy.

Personally, I think alignment is useful for a quick moral/ethical sum-up of a character, but probably shouldn't have too many mechanical effects. In my experience, the more mechanics there are attached the alignment, the easier it is for it to become a straitjacket, and the more otherwise good GMs feel like they need to be the Alignment Police. One of the more depressing GM experiences I had was having a Paladin player who'd obviously suffered under a straitjacket GM at some point, because he was constantly telling himself he couldn't do perfectly reasonable things (like not fall for the obvious trap the bad guy was setting up) without falling and losing his power.

so true, and the alignment system only makes it more extreme because it makes it easier to straightjacket. in Fact, D&D, PF, D20 and their derivative systems, are the only systems that use alignment, and they all do so, only because D&D included it. players whom want to be straightjacketed when alignment systems don't apply, will straightjacket themselves. i'd rather a player play the character with the personality they envision and the mechanical package they envision, rather than being forced to sacrifice the personality to get the mechanical package or vice versa. removal of alignment won't stop abusive DMs from being abusive, but it will give one less tool to abuse and one less tool to distrupt sessions with.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i have never played lawful good because i have DMs that are really anal about it and enforce an extremely rigid set of archetypes and try to prevent any "creative weaseling"...
Well, at least consider the notion that part of the problem lies in the interpretation the GMs have been giving the alignment system, not the alignment system itself. Honestly, I share some of your difficulties with portraying Lawful Good: it's a common literary meme, but to be honest even most characters who "must choose between what's honorable and what's right" make their choice in the course of a single movie/book/whatever, while a Pathfinder LG character must keep on deciding indefinitely (or change alignments.)

and that is why i cannot commit to a lawful good alignment and portray it for long. because being forced to play the naive idealist whom has to have it both ways or fall, is a bad idea. but i would rather, that lawful characters be able to get away with having less choices forced throughout the campaign, as something closer to a book series or movie.

forcing the choice between what is honorable and what is right every session is just lazy DMing as a means to set up the paladin to fall. should i play a paladin, i would probably choose what is right over what is honorable, even if that right deed is dishonorable. and would prefer not to have my class turned off for choosing right over honor. if stopping the Villain in his sleep with a quiet beheading before he wakes up to summon the evil deity would save more innocent lives, then expect me to sneak up on the villain's lair three knights before the ritual to coup de grace the sleeping villain to save as many lives as possible. i won't give the villain a chance to do his ritual, complete his monologue or bring the worlds end. it may not be honorable, but it saves many more innocent lives. if i can get access to a means to scry on the villain and teleport to his lair to slay him in his sleep, bonus points to save lives.

Sovereign Court

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Time for my personal opinion.

I've played enough alignment-less game systems to think it doesn't really have much of an effect on the overall gameplay. People who want to play disruptive jerk characters will do so regardless of alignment. GMs who want to be overly restrictive and controlling will do so regardless, they'll just use different tools for it. At the same time, the fact that I've played and enjoyed many games that don't have any alignment system inclines me to think that it's not a strictly necessary part of roleplaying games or that taking it away results in chaos and anarchy.

Personally, I think alignment is useful for a quick moral/ethical sum-up of a character, but probably shouldn't have too many mechanical effects. In my experience, the more mechanics there are attached the alignment, the easier it is for it to become a straitjacket, and the more otherwise good GMs feel like they need to be the Alignment Police. One of the more depressing GM experiences I had was having a Paladin player who'd obviously suffered under a straitjacket GM at some point, because he was constantly telling himself he couldn't do perfectly reasonable things (like not fall for the obvious trap the bad guy was setting up) without falling and losing his power.

so true, and the alignment system only makes it more extreme because it makes it easier to straightjacket. in Fact, D&D, PF, D20 and their derivative systems, are the only systems that use alignment, and they all do so, only because D&D included it. players whom want to be straightjacketed when alignment systems don't apply, will straightjacket themselves. i'd rather a player play the character with the personality they envision and the mechanical package they envision, rather than being forced to sacrifice the personality to get the mechanical package or vice versa. removal of alignment won't stop abusive DMs from being abusive, but it will give one less tool to abuse and one less tool to distrupt sessions with.

It would be much easier for you to change GMs then to force Paizo to change Pathfinder at everyones expense.


Pan wrote:
It would be much easier for you to change GMs then to force Paizo to change Pathfinder at everyones expense

we don't have to change pathfinder 1e, but Pathfinder 2e better not include alignment restrictions and PFS 2e should make their entire advanced race guide playable without needing a boon, not just a handful of races with a boon.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i have never played lawful good because i have DMs that are really anal about it and enforce an extremely rigid set of archetypes and try to prevent any "creative weaseling"...
Well, at least consider the notion that part of the problem lies in the interpretation the GMs have been giving the alignment system, not the alignment system itself. Honestly, I share some of your difficulties with portraying Lawful Good: it's a common literary meme, but to be honest even most characters who "must choose between what's honorable and what's right" make their choice in the course of a single movie/book/whatever, while a Pathfinder LG character must keep on deciding indefinitely (or change alignments.)

and that is why i cannot commit to a lawful good alignment and portray it for long. because being forced to play the naive idealist whom has to have it both ways or fall, is a bad idea. but i would rather, that lawful characters be able to get away with having less choices forced throughout the campaign, as something closer to a book series or movie.

forcing the choice between what is honorable and what is right every session is just lazy DMing as a means to set up the paladin to fall. should i play a paladin, i would probably choose what is right over what is honorable, even if that right deed is dishonorable. and would prefer not to have my class turned off for choosing right over honor. if stopping the Villain in his sleep with a quiet beheading before he wakes up to summon the evil deity would save more innocent lives, then expect me to sneak up on the villain's lair three knights before the ritual to coup de grace the sleeping villain to save as many lives as possible. i won't give the villain a chance to do his ritual, complete his monologue or bring the worlds end. it may not be honorable, but it saves many more innocent lives. if i can get access to a means to scry on the villain and teleport to his lair to slay him in his sleep, bonus...

I submit that an alignment that could describe both Samuel Vimes and Carrot Ironfoundersson has plenty of room for variety.


born_of_fire wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
If Christians were granted powers by their God, eating shellfish and having sex in positions other than missionary might cause their God to revoke those powers. Since the Christian God doesn't grant its followers any powers, this comparison in pretty specious.

He said even trying to WORSHIP said deity would be stupid.

And per the rules on Clerics, no they would not lose the powers. They have to GROSSLY violate their god's Code of Conduct to lose powers.

Unless you worship "The God Of Sex For Procreation Only" it's not going to be an issue.

You have no idea how dear not eating shellfish is to the Christian God because only dead people get to find out. All those Christians who thought shellfish was not a big deal might have been in for quite a surprise when they met their maker.

The point is that the Christian God does not communicate with its followers in any way that is comparable to the gods in PFRPG so nobody really knows whether they are pissing it off the way you will know with the gods in the game. That is why the comparison is specious.

It's an analogy. It's never going to be perfect.

Do you have anything else to add?

I can't compare it to anything else, bar other real world pantheons which run into the same issue.

So we make assumptions for the sake of comparison.

"Real" God vs Pathfinder god.

Assume they work the same way. Some transgressions are considered bigger than others.

That's not too huge of a leap to work from since, as you say, nobody can be sure either way.

We know the PF gods (on the whole) aren't as petty as, say, the gods of Olympus, and don't punish minor transgressions with fire and brimstone.

So, working from said assumption (that neither punishes to the full extent minor transgressions), is anyone therefore "stupid" for worshiping one without believing in every tiny thing that god stands for to the bottom of their soul?

I really should not have had to clarify this.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Pan wrote:
It would be much easier for you to change GMs then to force Paizo to change Pathfinder at everyones expense
we don't have to change pathfinder 1e, but Pathfinder 2e better not include alignment restrictions and PFS 2e should make their entire advanced race guide playable without needing a boon, not just a handful of races with a boon.

"Better not"?

Really?

The Exchange

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
...(R)emoval of alignment... will give... one less tool to disrupt sessions with.

Sorry to quote myself, but when I read this, I immediately thought of a snarky definition I gave over at the Pathfinder Lexicon:

Lincoln Hills wrote:
Alignment Violation: An excuse to take time out from arguing about math, physics and/or strategy in order to have an argument about philosophy


RDM42 wrote:
I submit that an alignment that could describe both Samuel Vimes and Carrot Ironfoundersson has plenty of room for variety.

I really don't get where "Sam Vimes is LG" comes from.


Rynjin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
I submit that an alignment that could describe both Samuel Vimes and Carrot Ironfoundersson has plenty of room for variety.

I really don't get where "Sam Vimes is LG" comes from.

Really? Quite blatantly so.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But not happy about it.

Sovereign Court

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Pan wrote:
It would be much easier for you to change GMs then to force Paizo to change Pathfinder at everyones expense
we don't have to change pathfinder 1e, but Pathfinder 2e better not include alignment restrictions and PFS 2e should make their entire advanced race guide playable without needing a boon, not just a handful of races with a boon.

Making some classes rare is a neat setting idea. It also gives players a cool achievement to look forward. I hope that PF1 and PF2 is it happens are compatible for my library of APs. /not signed


Completely incorruptible. Follows strict personal codes. Refers back to them frequently. Etcetera.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i have never played lawful good because i have DMs that are really anal about it and enforce an extremely rigid set of archetypes and try to prevent any "creative weaseling"...
Well, at least consider the notion that part of the problem lies in the interpretation the GMs have been giving the alignment system, not the alignment system itself. Honestly, I share some of your difficulties with portraying Lawful Good: it's a common literary meme, but to be honest even most characters who "must choose between what's honorable and what's right" make their choice in the course of a single movie/book/whatever, while a Pathfinder LG character must keep on deciding indefinitely (or change alignments.)

and that is why i cannot commit to a lawful good alignment and portray it for long. because being forced to play the naive idealist whom has to have it both ways or fall, is a bad idea. but i would rather, that lawful characters be able to get away with having less choices forced throughout the campaign, as something closer to a book series or movie.

forcing the choice between what is honorable and what is right every session is just lazy DMing as a means to set up the paladin to fall. should i play a paladin, i would probably choose what is right over what is honorable, even if that right deed is dishonorable. and would prefer not to have my class turned off for choosing right over honor. if stopping the Villain in his sleep with a quiet beheading before he wakes up to summon the evil deity would save more innocent lives, then expect me to sneak up on the villain's lair three knights before the ritual to coup de grace the sleeping villain to save as many lives as possible. i won't give the villain a chance to do his ritual, complete his monologue or bring the worlds end. it may not be honorable, but it saves many more innocent lives. if i can get access to a means to scry on the villain and teleport to his lair to slay him in his sleep, bonus...

And as many do, you're getting the lawful good interpretation completely wrong.

Chaotic Goods can be honorable, and certainly Lawful Goods as well. Honor is not what defines the difference between the two.

The Chaotic Good character is the nice side of the "all about me" chaotic neutral alignment. His chaotic aspect means that he defines Good solely on his own terms. If they happen to agree with someone else's terms, that's a bonus but not mandatory. He might swear oaths, he may be the most honorable person on the planet, but it's purely on HIS terms. When he swears an oath it is on his honor alone.

The Lawful Good on the other hand, defines good from standards outside himself. Whether it's the tenets of a order, the worship of a church, the important thing is that he defines his Good in terms of a greater hiearchy. When he swears an oath it is in the name of his order, his family, or his god.

Within those bounds lies a lot of room for variety in play.


RDM42 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Pan wrote:
It would be much easier for you to change GMs then to force Paizo to change Pathfinder at everyones expense
we don't have to change pathfinder 1e, but Pathfinder 2e better not include alignment restrictions and PFS 2e should make their entire advanced race guide playable without needing a boon, not just a handful of races with a boon.

"Better not"?

Really?

Pathfinder 2e would have to be a big departure from Pathfinder to truly be a different system, and well, if it does come out, i don't want to see alignment in the core rulebook, in fact, we should theoretically include a bunch of additional races and classes by dropping premade flavor and alignment restrictions. effectively, give a generic mechanical description of the class with a few examples from a variety of flavors around the world, to get around the "paladin must be a paladin" by creating a class, that while useable to represent a paladin could also be used to represent other magical and supernatural warriors as well. Repeating the same D20 system with a few tweaks, is not something i would imagine Paizo doing.


RDM42 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
I submit that an alignment that could describe both Samuel Vimes and Carrot Ironfoundersson has plenty of room for variety.

I really don't get where "Sam Vimes is LG" comes from.

Really? Quite blatantly so.

I can't see him as anything but NG.

He will bend and even surreptitiously break the law when necessary to save someone. The law is a means to an end in many cases, not worth upholding on its own merits at all.

Meanwhile, Carrot is definitely the poster child for LG. Following the law is important to him, and his general assumption when starting anything is that the law is the law because the law is just, and justice is Good therefore the law is Good.

And if the law ISN'T just, it needs to be changed to be so.

Meanwhile Vimes' reaction to an un-just law is pretty much "Yeah, that's the way the world works. Roll with the punches and try to work around it whenever possible".

Very different attitudes toward the whole deal.

RDM42 wrote:
Completely incorruptible. Follows strict personal codes. Refers back to them frequently. Etcetera.

I'm of the opinion that he's incorruptible purely because he could care less what people offer him if it's going to hurt other people (which, even in an indirect sense, him getting caught and losing the faith of the people he knows will do).

Personal codes are not a purely Lawful thing either.


LazarX wrote:

And as usual, you're gettig the lawful good interpretation completely wrong.

Chaotic Goods can be honorable, and certainly Lawful Goods as well. Honor is not what defines the difference between the two.

The Chaotic Good character is the nice side of the "all about me" chaotic neutral alignment. His chaotic aspect means that he defines Good solely on his own terms. If they happen to agree with someone else's terms, that's a bonus but not mandatory. He might swear oaths, he may be the most honorable person on the planet, but it's purely on HIS terms. When he swears an oath it is on his honor alone.

The Lawful Good on the other hand, defines good from standards outside himself. Whether it's the tenets of a order, the worship of a church, the important thing is that he defines his Good in terms of a greater hiearchy. When he swears an oath it is in the name of his order, his family, or his god.

Within those bounds lies a lot of room for variety in play.

so sneaking into the Evil Emperor's Palace while his guards are off duty and assassinating the evil emperor in his sleep 3 days before he is ready to start his evil ritual of mass Demonic Resurrection and save billions of innocent lives by preventing the demonic horde from arising by killing the evil overlord in his sleep while he was helpless and denying him a chance to bring Armageddon, including saving the lives of many potential sacrifices by both slaying the evil emperor in his sleep and preventing the Resurrection of a demonic horde while minimizing damage to yourself and your companions is not lawful good? even if it were the right thing to do over the honorable thing to do?

the right thing in this case, while dishonorable, was to prevent armageddon from coming, by stopping the one guy powerful enough to bring it, through assassination. effectively, you saved countless innocent lives by swallowing your pride and beheading the evil emperor in his sleep while he was most vulnerable. it would be akin to Aang sneaking into the fire nation and swallowing his pride to behead Firelord Ozai in his sleep and stop a war that lasted a century and save countless potential future lives. effectively, you killed the evil overlord before he could resurrect the demonic army.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
LazarX wrote:

And as usual, you're gettig the lawful good interpretation completely wrong.

Chaotic Goods can be honorable, and certainly Lawful Goods as well. Honor is not what defines the difference between the two.

The Chaotic Good character is the nice side of the "all about me" chaotic neutral alignment. His chaotic aspect means that he defines Good solely on his own terms. If they happen to agree with someone else's terms, that's a bonus but not mandatory. He might swear oaths, he may be the most honorable person on the planet, but it's purely on HIS terms. When he swears an oath it is on his honor alone.

The Lawful Good on the other hand, defines good from standards outside himself. Whether it's the tenets of a order, the worship of a church, the important thing is that he defines his Good in terms of a greater hiearchy. When he swears an oath it is in the name of his order, his family, or his god.

Within those bounds lies a lot of room for variety in play.

so sneaking into the Evil Emperor's Palace while his guards are off duty and assassinating the evil emperor in his sleep 3 days before he is ready to start his evil ritual of mass Demonic Resurrection and save billions of innocent lives by preventing the demonic horde from arising by killing the evil overlord in his sleep while he was helpless and denying him a chance to bring Armageddon, including saving the lives of many potential sacrifices by both slaying the evil emperor in his sleep and preventing the Resurrection of a demonic horde while minimizing damage to yourself and your companions is not lawful good? even if it were the right thing to do over the honorable thing to do?

Your high school english teachers have called. They've sentenced you to death for that run-on sentence. The creative writing teachers have added the accessory crime of using a strawman argument.


LazarX wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
LazarX wrote:

And as usual, you're gettig the lawful good interpretation completely wrong.

Chaotic Goods can be honorable, and certainly Lawful Goods as well. Honor is not what defines the difference between the two.

The Chaotic Good character is the nice side of the "all about me" chaotic neutral alignment. His chaotic aspect means that he defines Good solely on his own terms. If they happen to agree with someone else's terms, that's a bonus but not mandatory. He might swear oaths, he may be the most honorable person on the planet, but it's purely on HIS terms. When he swears an oath it is on his honor alone.

The Lawful Good on the other hand, defines good from standards outside himself. Whether it's the tenets of a order, the worship of a church, the important thing is that he defines his Good in terms of a greater hiearchy. When he swears an oath it is in the name of his order, his family, or his god.

Within those bounds lies a lot of room for variety in play.

so sneaking into the Evil Emperor's Palace while his guards are off duty and assassinating the evil emperor in his sleep 3 days before he is ready to start his evil ritual of mass Demonic Resurrection and save billions of innocent lives by preventing the demonic horde from arising by killing the evil overlord in his sleep while he was helpless and denying him a chance to bring Armageddon, including saving the lives of many potential sacrifices by both slaying the evil emperor in his sleep and preventing the Resurrection of a demonic horde while minimizing damage to yourself and your companions is not lawful good? even if it were the right thing to do over the honorable thing to do?
Your high school english teachers have called. They've sentenced you to death for that run-on sentence. The creative writing teachers have added the accessory crime of using a strawman argument.

i was asking whether or not it would be lawful good. sorry for the Run-on sentence. but my highschool was crap and loaded with lousy apathetic teachers whom just didn't care. so i know i didn't get a good education, despite having a diploma. would something like that example fit under the lawful good banner of choosing right over honorable? and would it fit as something a paladin should be able to do in your vision?


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
LazarX wrote:

And as usual, you're gettig the lawful good interpretation completely wrong.

Chaotic Goods can be honorable, and certainly Lawful Goods as well. Honor is not what defines the difference between the two.

The Chaotic Good character is the nice side of the "all about me" chaotic neutral alignment. His chaotic aspect means that he defines Good solely on his own terms. If they happen to agree with someone else's terms, that's a bonus but not mandatory. He might swear oaths, he may be the most honorable person on the planet, but it's purely on HIS terms. When he swears an oath it is on his honor alone.

The Lawful Good on the other hand, defines good from standards outside himself. Whether it's the tenets of a order, the worship of a church, the important thing is that he defines his Good in terms of a greater hiearchy. When he swears an oath it is in the name of his order, his family, or his god.

Within those bounds lies a lot of room for variety in play.

so sneaking into the Evil Emperor's Palace while his guards are off duty and assassinating the evil emperor in his sleep 3 days before he is ready to start his evil ritual of mass Demonic Resurrection and save billions of innocent lives by preventing the demonic horde from arising by killing the evil overlord in his sleep while he was helpless and denying him a chance to bring Armageddon, including saving the lives of many potential sacrifices by both slaying the evil emperor in his sleep and preventing the Resurrection of a demonic horde while minimizing damage to yourself and your companions is not lawful good? even if it were the right thing to do over the honorable thing to do?

Since you asked ...

... one could make the argument that there would be nothing wrong with a paladin doing what you described above if it occurred in the context, for example, of declared war. It is, in that case, an assassination, in a technical sense, but more accurately in the spirit of the action an execution of an avowed and obviously, manifestly evil enemy. The defeat of evil is good; the execution/killing of an unrepentant enemy of your church/state/god is not only good, but lawful as well. The context is applicable. If you were to have the evil emperor securely a prisoner in your fortress and summarily execute him without a trial or recourse to appeal, it would be an obviously evil and unlawful act, because you'd have denied him/her due process and the opportunity for repentance by cutting his or her life short. If instead you are braving his or her stronghold, in which he is still at large and able to commit further evil acts without let, and you're unable to capture and transport him to a location from which you may make him or her answer for their crimes, to kill them is at that point an act of war, and entirely justified in that context, even for a paladin.


Rynjin wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
born_of_fire wrote:
If Christians were granted powers by their God, eating shellfish and having sex in positions other than missionary might cause their God to revoke those powers. Since the Christian God doesn't grant its followers any powers, this comparison in pretty specious.

He said even trying to WORSHIP said deity would be stupid.

And per the rules on Clerics, no they would not lose the powers. They have to GROSSLY violate their god's Code of Conduct to lose powers.

Unless you worship "The God Of Sex For Procreation Only" it's not going to be an issue.

You have no idea how dear not eating shellfish is to the Christian God because only dead people get to find out. All those Christians who thought shellfish was not a big deal might have been in for quite a surprise when they met their maker.

The point is that the Christian God does not communicate with its followers in any way that is comparable to the gods in PFRPG so nobody really knows whether they are pissing it off the way you will know with the gods in the game. That is why the comparison is specious.

It's an analogy. It's never going to be perfect.

Do you have anything else to add?

I can't compare it to anything else, bar other real world pantheons which run into the same issue.

So we make assumptions for the sake of comparison.

"Real" God vs Pathfinder god.

Assume they work the same way. Some transgressions are considered bigger than others.

That's not too huge of a leap to work from since, as you say, nobody can be sure either way.

We know the PF gods (on the whole) aren't as petty as, say, the gods of Olympus, and don't punish minor transgressions with fire and brimstone.

So, working from said assumption (that neither punishes to the full extent minor transgressions), is anyone therefore "stupid" for worshiping one without believing in every tiny thing that god stands for to the bottom of their soul?

I really should not have had to...

Gee, so sorry to have inconvenienced you way up there on your high horse. I guess I should be grateful that you deigned to respond. Your assumptions have no basis and what's worse is that they are not objective in any way. You can't compare real life God to PFRPG gods because if the lack of feedback from real life God. You have no way of knowing when you are displeasing real life God until you are dead which is nothing at all like PFRPG gods. Why am I explaining this to you for the third time now? Gah. (I am equally capable of being a dismissive jerk as you are :) )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course they're not objective. We're talking about a group of made up individuals and someone whose existence is inherently unprovable, and how they would react to certain scenarios.


memorax wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Best typo of the week. :)

Yeah it kind of is lol.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


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.
I will concede with the right group of players one can without alignment. Or by house ruling that it has less of a effect. Again one needs the right group. Maybe I'm a little jaded and have had one too many players who either can't play their alignment properly. Or choose to ignore it and play themselves. Maybe next game I may try without alignments at least at the start. As I would trust my current group.

Honestly, I have my issues with alignment, but I don't think I radically disagree with many people in this thread. I can imagine how alignment can go bad, but I haven't been jaded by it. The closest I've ever been to an alignment horror story was 1) the DM who momentarily considered taking a samurai's powers after an act of questionable honor, but quickly decided "Oh forget it, let's roll some dice!" and 2) the player who told me that he doesn't even consider playing paladins even in 4e due to bad experiences with past DMs.

I actually like alignment conceptually, if not in execution. If rewritten with a steady and non-intrusive hand, I think it'd be a charming way to reinforce the game's heroic/villainous themes. I don't think that using alignment automatically results in cheesy tropes, or that realistic personalities can't fit into a loose alignment spectrum.

I just don't like alignment restrictions entitling well-intentioned but inexperienced DMs and adversarial DMs an easy way to accidentally or intentionally screw PCs over, or divination spells making it easy to identify subtler villains.

I don't mind reasonable and loose restrictions like the cleric's -- it just really sucks that if your character concept happens to be 'healing specialist,' your best (and only?) option is to be saddled with a god looking over your shoulder.

I like stuff like smite evil because I like the idea that being a hero in the D&D universe can have supernatural rewards; I just don't like narrowing the definition of 'hero' to 'LG with a specific CoC.' I'd also really love it if someone made a point of telling new DMs "Role play restrictions are not meant to counterbalance class benefits. So don't look for reasons for the paladin to fall; heroism doesn't require sainthood!"

All that said, I've been playing 4e for six years...and I don't miss alignment all that much. In fact I don't even think about it when making a character. Given the choice between meaningless 4e alignments and the baggage-laden alignment of other editions, I'll take the former. Less charm, but also no eye roll-worthy legacy rules.


I think it's been shown here that alignment in the hands of capable DM and intelligent players can be an invaluable tool, and a tremendous liability when employed as a bludgeon by the short-sighted and close-minded.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Umbriere wrote:
sorry for the Run-on sentence. but my highschool was crap and loaded with lousy apathetic teachers whom just didn't care. so i know i didn't get a good education, despite having a diploma.

I'm noticing a theme, here...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:
Why am I explaining this to you for the third time now? Gah.

I'm sure that Rynjin is asking himself the same thing.

As for "Why would a N character choose to devote himself to a LG god?" question: Maybe it wasn't a choice. This is a faux-Medieval world we're talking about here. Unless every god has a temple in every little town, I don't have a problem imagining that the seventh child of some minor noble got stuck in the local LG temple despite being N, or even chose to devote himself to a LG god in order to escape his provincial life.

Maybe a LG god would turn his nose up at such a candidate for divine empowerment, or maybe not. As Rynjin points out, there certainly is more than enough evil to thwart, and a LG god might figure "Better to give a N kid some divine juice rather than risk him turning to the dark side. He's faking it now, but seeing the evil we all face may make him a true believer..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Umbriere wrote:
sorry for the Run-on sentence. but my highschool was crap and loaded with lousy apathetic teachers whom just didn't care. so i know i didn't get a good education, despite having a diploma.
I'm noticing a theme, here...

i live in a bad area. bad schooling, lots of powermad jerkwads, few groups to play in, a huge portion of the groups are ran by said power mad jerkwads, i have to filter like 3 dozen groups of powermad jerkwads to find one nice and accomodating group that fits my schedule. i am worse than most Antisues.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
LazarX wrote:

And as usual, you're gettig the lawful good interpretation completely wrong.

Chaotic Goods can be honorable, and certainly Lawful Goods as well. Honor is not what defines the difference between the two.

The Chaotic Good character is the nice side of the "all about me" chaotic neutral alignment. His chaotic aspect means that he defines Good solely on his own terms. If they happen to agree with someone else's terms, that's a bonus but not mandatory. He might swear oaths, he may be the most honorable person on the planet, but it's purely on HIS terms. When he swears an oath it is on his honor alone.

The Lawful Good on the other hand, defines good from standards outside himself. Whether it's the tenets of a order, the worship of a church, the important thing is that he defines his Good in terms of a greater hiearchy. When he swears an oath it is in the name of his order, his family, or his god.

Within those bounds lies a lot of room for variety in play.

so sneaking into the Evil Emperor's Palace while his guards are off duty and assassinating the evil emperor in his sleep 3 days before he is ready to start his evil ritual of mass Demonic Resurrection and save billions of innocent lives by preventing the demonic horde from arising by killing the evil overlord in his sleep while he was helpless and denying him a chance to bring Armageddon, including saving the lives of many potential sacrifices by both slaying the evil emperor in his sleep and preventing the Resurrection of a demonic horde while minimizing damage to yourself and your companions is not lawful good? even if it were the right thing to do over the honorable thing to do?
Your high school english teachers have called. They've sentenced you to death for that run-on sentence. The creative writing teachers have added the accessory crime of using a strawman argument.
i was asking whether or not it would be lawful good. sorry for the Run-on...

It's a strawman argument because it's a setup that would never occur in anything approaching real play. The Evil Emperor being evil and such, will always have guards on duty, because if he cares about nothing else, he cares about his own precious hide. Being evil and such, he'll always be protected by his own contingencies if nothing else. And because the duty of a DM is to challenge his heroes, it's never going to be as easy as simply CDGing him in his sleep.

I'm not interested in answering hypotheticals that would not exist save for the sole purpose of putting up a strawman argument. I'm really sorry for you that your entire gaming experience has been full of "Jerkwad DMs". But that's not a healthy frame of mind for talking game theory, much less designing a game.

You're on the Internet. I'm fairly sure you're capable of running Google Hangout. So if all you have around you is "Jerkwad DMs" then go online, and break the limits of your environment. If however you search the entire gaming network and all you find are Jerks, maybe it's time for some self examination of your perceptions.


i will keep my saturday group and my nice online monday group, and search for other groups throughout the week. my monday DM i found online, i actually like, and my saturday DM, though i have conflicting viewpoints, has a nice set of players and knows how to be entertaining, despite my characters being his primary targets. but while CDGing the evil emperor in a real game would be highly unlikely to happen, that is what the week of scouting and espionage disguised as a guard beforehand is for, to learn the guard shifts and the contingencies, so you can bypass them and eliminate the risk, but that requires a group which actually takes stealth, bluff and disguise, which seems quite rare according to these boards. i have seen plenty of use for those 3 skills for setting up that situation for a CDG in plenty of real games. effectively, learning to decieve the guards, bypass the contingencies and behead the evil emperor without anybody noticing, and making people figure out which guard did it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
... a LG god might figure "Better to give a N kid some divine juice rather than risk him turning to the dark side. He's faking it now, but seeing the evil we all face may make him a true believer..."

TS, in my opinion, makes an important point, perhaps unknowingly: It's not just about the gods promoting their own agenda, if indeed they are truly good. It's about the salvation of souls—not because they allow the gods of good to win the cosmic wager with the gods of evil, or because they make excellent wallpaper in the anteroom of the Fourth Heaven ... but for the sake of the souls themselves.

Liberty's Edge

I'll repeat once again how useful Alignment is for people using published adventures, NPCs, or monsters.

It's got some potential advantages and disadvantages for PCs, but it's such a useful shorthand when describing NPC morality and behavior that I think it's very much worth keeping.


RDM42 wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

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.

No they don't. They remove some tropes. They don't limit you to just a few. There are more varieties of lawful good possible than you could play in a lifetime.

Yes, alignment is not a straight-jacket unless you believe it to be or the dm forces it to be. My current LG monk that must always speak the truth and with a total inability to persuade but a dogged loyalty and commitment to the struggle against Hellknights and tyranny, with an acceptance that people are lying cheating scoundrels that rarely pursue honesty is quite different to my LG Chelaxian blaster with a strong commitment to law, order and keeping the people happy and on the side of her political camp. This actor which always pursued conversion where possible, because even CE could be persuaded into helping the state and be granted the safety and protection they truly also desired and which they normally used violence so as to protect themselves and achieve. So much possibility in LG.

201 to 250 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.