And even if you have a good answer to the above question (unlikely), why does a chaotic act make him not LN?
Oh! Can I do this one?
Because lawful people don't act chaotically!
But wait, one act doesn't change your alignment.
But wait, that was a pretty chaotic! Maybe it outweighs the others.
But who's supposed to decide on how much everything weighs? Who decided that its chaotic? This system is objective!
Well... This could take a while. What were we talking about again?
It's not the 'letting of little things get to you', but how they responded to those things. A lawful person would NOT just beat up someone and throw them in to the ocean if they don't like what they're doing. That is totally chaotic!
That completely bolloxes the common "I will have ORDER!" trope. Temper is not remotely related to lawful alignment. It is relevant to discipline, which is a much better requirement for monks than lawful alignment. It is very unusual to be chaotic but still have discipline, but it is not unusual to be lawful but undisciplined.
From the PRD
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims.
This Monk clearly followed his whims, he didn't like the Bard's actions and he chose to behave recklessly and for his own betterment (ie. no longer have to hear the stupid bard and his puppet).
Again he has every right to do that, but he must accept the consequences.
It is like the person who drives slowly in the passing lane, we get mad at them for not following the law (rules of the road), but we do not run them off the road. If you do, than you are also acting unlawfully!
Again, these are players who have personality issues and bring them to the table, not alignment issues.
It's not the 'letting of little things get to you', but how they responded to those things. A lawful person would NOT just beat up someone and throw them in to the ocean if they don't like what they're doing. That is totally chaotic!That completely bolloxes the common "I will have ORDER!" trope.
Aye, lawful is the close minded and traditionalist, while chaotic actually want personal freedom for himself and others.
The act of spontaneously deciding to throw someone over a cliff might be erratic, and might be seen as chaotic, and then its done because the person is lawful which means... I don't know?
Another time someone wanted to be NE to get to a prestige class. I watched him for a month or two of sessions and he was very violent, killed people even if they surrendered, hoarded gold, and used his imposing stature and abilities to make the party always do what he wanted. I read the alignments and had to say to him eventually, "No, you're chaotic evil." He got upset cause he was saying I took away his chance to be that prestige class. Thing is, it was one from the horsemen and I forget the name but, like any Prestige class if you really think about it, you have to earn it. Why would the horsemen give you power if you don't act the way they want you to act? You can want that PrC all day but you have to actually show you deserve it. He called pigeonhole and whatnot for saying I am making him act a certain way, but HE picked the alignment. HE chose to go for a prestige class with an alignment requirement. You have to show you can be that alignment or your character doesn't get to do that. If you don't like it, you shouldn't be trying to play that alignment then and that PrC isn't for you. If a person wants to play something with an alignment restriction, it is the GMs job to make sure they at least loosely follow that alignment.
I think that's blaming other people and the system for your own actions. You could've helped him along to try and be NE, since your the one who wanted him to be NE to get into the class. If your the GM, and your putting these restrictions on people and have your own expectations, you should share and help, not just say "Nope, I think your this." when they were acting in that way just to get to their goal. I don't think that's going to make anyone a happy camper. When you take the responsibility of making the decision about what his alignment is and what PrC he can enter, you also take responsibility for where he ends up.
I didn't make him be NE. It was his choice and that what the requirement for the PrC he wanted to play, as written in the book. Why SHOULDN'T you have to prove yourself to a divine being or whatever the horsemen are if you want them to bestow you with power?
Why should he have to prove himself to you? The game isn't making the decision about what his alignment was or if he was allowed to enter the PrC, you took up that responsibility. You could've made houserules, you could've said "Hey your headed towards CE", or "This is what I want to get to NE".
If he ends up playing a CE character, trying to reach NE because you told him to go there, then whether he lives up to your expectations are in part, your responsibility.
I didn't make him be NE. It was his choice and that what the requirement for the PrC he wanted to play, as written in the book. Why SHOULDN'T you have to prove yourself to a divine being or whatever the horsemen are if you want them to bestow you with power?Why should he have to prove himself to you? The game isn't making the decision about what his alignment was or if he was allowed to enter the PrC, you took up that responsibility. You could've made houserules, you could've said "Hey your headed towards CE", or "This is what I want to get to NE".
If he ends up playing a CE character, trying to reach NE because you told him to go there, then whether he lives up to your expectations are in part, your responsibility.
Well, it's not the game really but the GM. If the player doesn't act like a Daemon-worshiper then why should he qualify for a PrC based on being a Daemon-worshiper.
That alignment-restricted class is a good argument for the alignment system in my mind. The class requires you to act a certain way and believe in certain things. This is summed up as Neutral Evil. If you read the section on it, you'll learn what that generally means. It's a guideline for how you should play the character if you want to play the class.
I DID say he was headed towards CE. Maybe you were still typing your post when I was editing mine to put that line in, because I knew I forgot something.
That changes the story pretty drastically if now your actually giving him warnings.
That alignment-restricted class is a good argument for the alignment system in my mind. The class requires you to act a certain way and believe in certain things. This is summed up as Neutral Evil. If you read the section on it, you'll learn what that generally means. It's a guideline for how you should play the character if you want to play the class.
Restrictions are also an argument against it. You can't have a barbarian who reveres totems and tradition and rages in combat. You can't have a cleric who does everything in his tenants and enjoys his god's portfolio but is more than two steps off. You can't have a monk who is disciplined but not traditional. You can't have an arcane trickster who is methodical and orderly. This list goes on.
That said, if it was "generally NE" or pointed to it, then it might be more of a guideline. A guideline is advice that can be worked with and around, a restriction is a rule and is more heavy handed. You could also use all that flavor text to really divulge how horrible the daemons and their horsemen are and how their soul eater's act, which might lead to people making characters who do just that and more accurately than a few sentences in the CRB. You would also have more flexibility with their characterization, and less likely would a DM decide you can't be one or take it away for something outside of your expectations in the class.
There are going to be games, many many games in fact, that are going to have aspects you don't like.
I don't think I ever said there weren't, or that you had to play it my way, or that I don't already play other games or this game in my own way.
Whether something is good isn't dependent on whether I like it or not. Whether I like it or not shouldn't be the topic. Whether it can cause a problem is far more on topic than me.
Now, if we want to talk about me, we should discuss my good looks and great hair. Far more fascinating, imo.
I have had players pick Chaotic neutral, but spend the whole game totally subservient and always going along with what ever anyone wanted, and never stated their opinions or acted on their impulses. I had to ask them, "Are you sure chaotic neutral is right for you?" If you pick CN as an alignment but spend the whole game playing what is essentially a mindless drone, are you sure you are CN at all?
There's no contradiction here. A character who is chaotic neutral is not required to be at odds with people who have the same interests.
For someone who claims that people shouldn't play Pathfinder if they don't like the alignment system as written, you seem to have a strange view of that alignment system that isn't borne out by the text. Or maybe there's more to the story that you haven't posted, such as with the monk (turns out he never really acted before then, so that was the only action the GM had with which to consider his alignment). Either way, the very fact that dozens of people can reasonably disagree as to whether an action should be considered lawful/chaotic/fuchsia only further damns the alignment system. No core rule system should inspire such conflict between well-meaning players.
It really sounds like you would have more fun with 4th edition than pathfinder, MrSin, cause right now that's just how the game is and a fair number of people like it the way it is. There are going to be games, many many games in fact, that are going to have aspects you don't like. You don't have to try to make them change their rules to be what you want because people already like it how it is. I play several different roleplaying games since they have things I like that others don't. You could try other games and maybe you will like something better than pathfinder that fits what you like. Oh and I don't know if those goes without saying, but in PFS arguing alignment and houseruling is pointless there. It is what it is if I understand it correctly. Never played in it myself cause I hate the level 10 retirement thing. See, there is a part of that game I don't like, so I play something else rather than trying to make the game devs change it. of course, you can house rule things at your table but the game itself is just how it is.
Again with the "if you don't like it, leave" mentality. What, exactly, is such a post supposed to accomplish? It is perfectly reasonable to like the vast majority of the Pathfinder system without liking the alignment system it inherited as baggage from previous editions. The system functions just fine if you remove alignment, so why should people throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Either way, the very fact that dozens of people can reasonably disagree as to whether an action should be considered lawful/chaotic/fuchsia only further damns the alignment system.
Fuchsia? I think it could've been more blue. Clealry this action was .
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I DID say he was headed towards CE. Maybe you were still typing your post when I was editing mine to put that line in, because I knew I forgot something.That changes the story pretty drastically if now your actually giving him warnings.
People really like to slowly feed examples to make sure they don't give information that looks bad and when it does suddenly *more information pointing otherwise*.
Honestly Jacinto, you sound like you were a jerk to that player.
And you sound like a jerk when you say "Maybe you should play a different game" when someone doesn't like one small subsystem that determines whether you get hurt by alignment effects. Thats it. Thats all alignment does beside determine whether you qualify for alignment stuff.
Alignment has never been the dictator of your actions. It is a reflection of your actions.
It does not change based on one or two actions. It is the culmination of many actions that can result in those juicy "My gods! What have I done?!" scenes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know. Maybe I've just been lucky and played with mature, relatively mellow people, but I've never had one of these alignment fights people keep talking about. Maybe that's why I'm fine with it. I don't run into the problems.
I think I remember one case where the GM stopped a player and warned him he'd be switching to Evil if he continued with his planned torture and murder of a captive. Everyone pretty much agreed and the player backed off.
One short term paladin fall, that led to some good roleplay on his recovery. That's about it, in decades of gaming. Not all of it in D&D admittedly.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
apparently you don't either given that you can shift the definitions you use on a whim
This seems a strange conclusion to draw. Let me give you a comparison.
I joined a group playing PF. Now for some reason this group had decided that you couldn't move through an ally's square during combat, even if you were nowhere near any foes even. The only exception was if you were using spring attack, because some FAQ or developers post somewhere said you could spring up and stand in ally's square, attack from that square, and then move away with spring attack.
Now to me, these rules were mind boggling. Yet I accepted them as the house-rules being used and adapted to deal with them. The fact that I could adapt to these crazy interpretations in no way indicated my disinterest in the proper rules involving movement.
Likewise, if a group has, what I consider, a strange interpretation of a specific alignment, I will adapt to their version. It doesn't mean I think their interpretation is superior, or I don't care about where the lines are drawn for alignments, it means I am willing to adapt to the group I game with. As some have suggested, just because you don't like X aspects of a game doesn't mean you can't enjoy Y+Z aspects. Now I don't try to make everyone at the table lives annoying by griping and moaning about rules they want to use. I'll give my view, if it doesn't sway the group, I adapt.
In other words, I am not going to:
Fletcher: You scratched my car!
Motorpool Guy: Where?
Fletcher: [indicating with his hands] Right there!
Motorpool Guy: OH... That was already there.
Fletcher: You - -LIAR! You know what I am going to do about this?
Motorpool Guy: what?
Fletcher: Nothing! Because if I take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of my life and you probably won't show up and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway; so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!
Motorpool Guy: [tossing the keys to Fletcher] You've been here before haven't ya?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment has never been the dictator of your actions. It is a reflection of your actions.
While I agree with this, I wish to caveat that agreement for how I see/think of alignment.
Often, the question comes up, "If alignment is able to be detected, why are people still evil?"
Let me put it in a different frame; "If health is able to be gauged, why are people still overweight?"
I know, at least, that I'm overweight. (This is not something I'm actually proud of, but, you know, let's be honest: I'm fat, portly, obtuse in my angular, obese, wide, not-just-big boned, padded, and/or thick. Facts: faced.)
So... why? Is it because I want to be fat? No.
It's a combination of my genetics and habits in daily activity and substance intake.
Want to know something interesting? I like my combination of my genetics and habits in daily activity and substance intake. I have those because I like them. It's a thing - it's both my nature, and the sum weight of my actions working to continue to impel me forward.
Could I change them? Genetics: no. The other two: yes! Altering the other two is a viable way of altering my state of being overweight! How marvelous!
... but I'm unlikely to, at least not quickly or easily.
It does not change based on one or two actions. It is the culmination of many actions that can result in those juicy "My gods! What have I done?!" scenes.
And this is why.
Overeat once, and you're full and sick, and feel terrible.
Overeat a large number of times and suddenly you don't feel right unless you "over" eat. You still feel hungry. Your body clamors for more food.
It is, in fact, prescriptive in the sense that, now that it's habit (now that it's your 'dietary alignment', let's say), you have a tendency to continue doing those things. You always (well, almost always) have the agency to alter how you behave, but your body, mind, and emotions are generally going to impel you along a path continuing in the same direction you're currently following.
Alignment is the same way.
Some people are healthy.
Some people are not.
Continuously indulge in sin and wickedness and - guess what? - eventually you become evil! Surprise!
On the other hand, continuously conduct your mind, emotions*, and actions in a good manner and - guess what again? - eventually you become good! Surprise!
And so on for lawful, chaotic, and even neutral.
This is occasionally based on conscious decisions. This is occasionally based purely on habit. This is occasionally based on a combination of the two.
Okay, so, as we've learned, sometimes a person is "unhealthy" (in alignment terms "evil") because they like being what they are? But is it possible otherwise? Oh yes.
To many, Evil is literally (not figuratively) necessary. Why? I dunno - a large number of reasons.
Some are probably like the nameless guy in Firefly - they know they're evil and don't care, because they're still "doing what's right" for the sake of others.
Some are probably disbelievers - they feel that the alignment system is a trap set up by "the man" (or whatever) to keep them down.
Some are probably even more extreme than the Firefly agent - they actually believe that Evil is, in fact, the "Way of Things" and therefore is ultimately what is right - the fact that there are active and evil divinities who are successful only lends credence to that theory.
Some probably have motivations I can't guess at - as I was reminded recently, I can't begin to guess all the motivations of people, even when I'm trying to be as inclusive as possible: people are a diverse lot.
In general, though, none of these people thing that being Evil is wrong or, if they do, they have (what we would call) a twisted view of "wrong" - in other words, even if they accept Evil as = wrong, they claim those things as a label for self-empowerment or self-gratification, in a similar way to how many self-identify as "nerds" and revere "nerd culture" (myself being among this latter group).
In so-doing, they justify and (internally) redefine things, disregarding what is, in this case, an absolute truth for their own.
("I reject your reality and substitute my own!")
There may be a few who are genuine nut-jobs. They accept "wrong" as being what we define it as, and they have enough self-will to avoid being evil, should they so choose, but they still plunge head-first into it, and delight in doing so. It happens.
Point is, alignment is objective in-universe, subjective out-of-universe, and, whether you like it or not, it has potential pit-falls you should be aware of, and benefits and explanations you should be aware of.
Casually dismissing those who disagree with you is not the best course of action, most of the time. :D
* Worth noting: emotions are reactive, yes, but they're also consciously controllable, or at least optionally actionable. I might be furious at someone, but I make the choice whether or not to let that go. I might find a woman incredibly attractive, but I make the choice whether or not to redirect that attention and desire toward my wife. Too many people go through life just accepting their emotions at face value. I know I do all too often. It's natural. It's easy. The harder way is to control yourself, your mind, and your emotions. ... okay, yeah, that was preachy. Sorry. I'm the son of Pastor! What do you want?! Stop looking at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Alignment shifts are gonna happen if you are drastically different from the one you wrote on your sheet.
Depends on who you play with. Some people play alignment-lite, no alignment, or even put alignment entirely in the hands of the player. If you play with Jacinto you might, but then again you might have a different idea about what things are than Jacinto, as seen from the monk example.
I don't know. Maybe I've just been lucky and played with mature, relatively mellow people, but I've never had one of these alignment fights people keep talking about. Maybe that's why I'm fine with it. I don't run into the problems.
I think I remember one case where the GM stopped a player and warned him he'd be switching to Evil if he continued with his planned torture and murder of a captive. Everyone pretty much agreed and the player backed off.
One short term paladin fall, that led to some good roleplay on his recovery. That's about it, in decades of gaming. Not all of it in D&D admittedly.
My first experience with Pathfinder (tabletops in general actually, I've been 100% into video games for most of my life) was being barred from playing a gritty boxer raised on the streets because Monks have to be lawful.
So yeah, I have pretty strong feelings about the alignment system.
If you put Lawful Good on your character sheet, then run around kicking puppies, raping, torturing people for fun and selling little girls into slavery
Hyperbole is hyperbolic.
I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote.
I have always played, since AD&D, that alignment is not something to be ignored. Everything on that sheet matters.
Oh and I am totally cool with no alignment games, but that takes revamping a lot of things like detection spells, spells and abilities that effect things of specific alignments, smite evil, etc.. But I ask the group, before character creation, what they want to play. If they say full alignment, then that is what we do. Arachnofiend, I totally get and it is more than just the alignment. Monks are monastic and belong to orders. So you could have been in a boxing club and I would let that go. Also now there is the martial artist archtype thing. I will also, if a player talks to me, revamp a class to suit what they want. Then it also comes to if the rest of the players are cool with it. I make sure everyone is ok with everyone else's characters before we start to avoid party conflict. Still happens after but things happen.
I've played since AD&D as well and you know what I ignore in my 3.5 and PF games? THAC0. You know what rules I ignored even when playing AD&D? Racial class level caps and restrictions. Why? Because they were a terrible idea that was removed in the next version of the game. The same is true of alignment. A new version of D&D would be well served by the butchering of the sacred cow.
I have always played, since AD&D, that alignment is not something to be ignored. Everything on that sheet matters.
Oh and I am totally cool with no alignment games, but that takes revamping a lot of things like detection spells, spells and abilities that effect things of specific alignments, smite evil, etc.. But I ask the group, before character creation, what they want to play. If they say full alignment, then that is what we do. Arachnofiend, I totally get and it is more than just the alignment. Monks are monastic and belong to orders. So you could have been in a boxing club and I would let that go. Also now there is the martial artist archtype thing. I will also, if a player talks to me, revamp a class to suit what they want. Then it also comes to if the rest of the players are cool with it. I make sure everyone is ok with everyone else's characters before we start to avoid party conflict. Still happens after but things happen.
change smite to function as challenge, but works at range too...remove everything else...and done.
|
I don't know. Maybe I've just been lucky and played with mature, relatively mellow people, but I've never had one of these alignment fights people keep talking about. Maybe that's why I'm fine with it. I don't run into the problems.
I think I remember one case where the GM stopped a player and warned him he'd be switching to Evil if he continued with his planned torture and murder of a captive. Everyone pretty much agreed and the player backed off.
One short term paladin fall, that led to some good roleplay on his recovery. That's about it, in decades of gaming. Not all of it in D&D admittedly.
My first experience with Pathfinder (tabletops in general actually, I've been 100% into video games for most of my life) was being barred from playing a gritty boxer raised on the streets because Monks have to be lawful.
So yeah, I have pretty strong feelings about the alignment system.
That's a Unarmed Strike focused fighter, Martial Artist Monk, or the new Brawler class.
Sometimes, the concept requires a different class. Not a different concept.
I don't know. Maybe I've just been lucky and played with mature, relatively mellow people, but I've never had one of these alignment fights people keep talking about. Maybe that's why I'm fine with it. I don't run into the problems.
I think I remember one case where the GM stopped a player and warned him he'd be switching to Evil if he continued with his planned torture and murder of a captive. Everyone pretty much agreed and the player backed off.
One short term paladin fall, that led to some good roleplay on his recovery. That's about it, in decades of gaming. Not all of it in D&D admittedly.
My first experience with Pathfinder (tabletops in general actually, I've been 100% into video games for most of my life) was being barred from playing a gritty boxer raised on the streets because Monks have to be lawful.
So yeah, I have pretty strong feelings about the alignment system.
That's a Unarmed Strike focused fighter, Martial Artist Monk, or the new Brawler class.
Sometimes, the concept requires a different class. Not a different concept.
Awkwardly the class that first screams "Hai I punch people" is the monk though. I remember people who saw it in high school and said "Aww yeah, Bruce Lee!". The fact he fails to be the best at punching people is... another topic.
I don't know. Maybe I've just been lucky and played with mature, relatively mellow people, but I've never had one of these alignment fights people keep talking about. Maybe that's why I'm fine with it. I don't run into the problems.
I think I remember one case where the GM stopped a player and warned him he'd be switching to Evil if he continued with his planned torture and murder of a captive. Everyone pretty much agreed and the player backed off.
One short term paladin fall, that led to some good roleplay on his recovery. That's about it, in decades of gaming. Not all of it in D&D admittedly.
My first experience with Pathfinder (tabletops in general actually, I've been 100% into video games for most of my life) was being barred from playing a gritty boxer raised on the streets because Monks have to be lawful.
So yeah, I have pretty strong feelings about the alignment system.
That's a Unarmed Strike focused fighter, Martial Artist Monk, or the new Brawler class.
Sometimes, the concept requires a different class. Not a different concept.
The Martial Artist is what I ended up going with after we stumbled upon it looking for an answer to what I wanted to play, which was almost as bad because the Martial Artist is a trap option and not something I should have done for my first time playing D&D.
It was pretty disheartening going to the GM and saying "I want to play a mean urban chick that punches people in the face, what are my options?" and him replying "well the Monk is designed for the purpose of punching people in the face but you can't do that". If we didn't have the whole SRD open to work with I would've had to abandon the concept entirely due to arbitrary roleplay restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if you want to give up on the Paladin being the Holy champion fighting evil thing. Which a lot of people do, but I actually like.
Oh no! They can hit more than evil things! They have to stop fighting evil things! Or you know... You can still fight evil things.
Here's a few pages on removing alignment from your game. Lots of ways to actually go about it.
Of course no one's actually arguing that alignment isn't part of the game atm.
Writing is kind of my thing, I can rework flavor when needed and do it quite well. I'm of the opinion that martials should look more like Celtic lore than Lord of the Rings anyways so her eventually being able to do supernatural things because she's just that awesome isn't much of a concern for me.
You're totally right about the base Monk being bad and as much of a trap as the Martial Artist, though. It would've been helpful if my GM had pointed that out but he's rather low on the system mastery front in general.
Of course you can remove alignment from the game. You just lose stuff I like to fix a problem I don't have.
Yes, removing restrictions means you can no longer play the character you did before, not that other people can play their character and you can have your options still. Also, because you don't have a problem means no one does and their opinions don't matter! Except you know... not, and the link I gave did try to keep the paladins flavor.
I could swear we've been over this before.
Except he's not a paladin anymore.
He's just not a paladin to you. Specifically you. She might be a paladin to someone else though.
I suppose you could write a code for all paladins that essentially boiled down to "Be Lawful Good. Never commit an evil act", but that probably wouldn't satisfy you.
I don't think I ever said that, and what satisfies me doesn't really matter.
Bit off topic here.
I never had a problem with the racial level caps when I read the race splat books. They made sense to me since they are totally different species from human with different physical and mental makeups. Dwarves were too rigid and "stick up the butt" by nature (not culture) to be paladins. Elves would only advance so far in a class because again, genetically, they just simply can't do the same thing forever. They live so long that they get bored easily and need to try different paths. They even give the example that there aren't any elven shepherds cause it is too boring and tedious, plus they can't eat meat. They gave reasons why they couldn't do certain things because, again, the races were not just different humans. They were each completely different creatures with totally different instincts.
I'm pretty sure rigid and "stick up the butt" are literally *THE* requirements to be a paladin. Please try to make your sense... well make sense.
Furthermore heroes are the exceptional people in the world. "They get bored." is literally the worst reason I've ever heard in my life for a race to not be able to advance in a class. Seriously liches study magic for ages, but Elves can't you say. Justify that. Justify that right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except he's not a paladin anymore. I could play some random fighter trying to live by a paladins code too, but that doesn't make him a paladin.
Of course he is technically not a Paladin because he has class levels in Fighter, as opposed to Paladin. That does not mean he couldn't be considered a "paladin." He lives the code and protects the innocent. For all intents and purposes he is in every aspect, except mechanically, a paladin. Hell, I play a Barbarian that lives and breathes the Paladin code and introduces himself as a paladin of Pelor. No one questions it because of his actions and because what you are mechanically is metagame. He is a Paladin, as far as the in game world is concerned.
I don't really see why the Paladin mechanic set couldn't be more flexible in the same way concerning differing character concepts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.
I don't know. Maybe I've just been lucky and played with mature, relatively mellow people, but I've never had one of these alignment fights people keep talking about. Maybe that's why I'm fine with it. I don't run into the problems.
I think I remember one case where the GM stopped a player and warned him he'd be switching to Evil if he continued with his planned torture and murder of a captive. Everyone pretty much agreed and the player backed off.
One short term paladin fall, that led to some good roleplay on his recovery. That's about it, in decades of gaming. Not all of it in D&D admittedly.
My first experience with Pathfinder (tabletops in general actually, I've been 100% into video games for most of my life) was being barred from playing a gritty boxer raised on the streets because Monks have to be lawful.
So yeah, I have pretty strong feelings about the alignment system.
Your gritty boxer raised on the streets shouldn't be a monk (try making it as a barbarian), shouldn't have ki (as it was not taught through monastic discipline and a master connected to a tradition of ki) and even if they were, if gritty means chaotic savage, you wouldn't be able to advance as a monk if you started as a monk at level 1, and then went chaotic.
If you want a street brawler, it can be done with a fighter, or a barbarian, or even a rogue. Your to hit for punching people will always be better than a monk as a barb (except when fatigued), you get rage, fast movement, you are tough as nails. You can savagely bite people after a few levels. You were really wanting to play an urban barbarian, but seem to have confused that with a mystic lawful martial artist with ki abilities.
[
The Martial Artist is what I ended up going with after we stumbled upon it looking for an answer to what I wanted to play, which was almost as bad because the Martial Artist is a trap option and not something I should have done for my first time playing D&D.
It was pretty disheartening going to the GM and saying "I want to play a mean urban chick that punches people in the face, what are my options?" and him replying "well the Monk is designed for the purpose of punching people in the face but you can't do that". If we didn't have the whole SRD open to work with I would've had to abandon the concept entirely due to arbitrary roleplay restrictions.
But seriously wouldn't the whole monk class have subverted that anyway? The base monk is just about as much of a trap as the Martial Artist and they get all these weird powers and things that don't really fit the "mean urban chick that punches people in the face" concept.
I am loving my base monk, they really have some good strengths and a range of abilities. Up to lev 9, soon will be 10. Vanilla monk is not a trap, you have just been told it is. Like good vanilla ice cream it is made very playable with some of the new monk style feats as tasty topping! I like my boar style bleed. It is my strawberry flavouring, it is the sprinkles of my life. Still a base monk class, still having a lot of fun.