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. I like my boar style bleed. Still a base monk class, still having a lot of fun.
You added sprinkles. Sprinkles came after vanilla. Not that there's anything wrong with sprinkles.
I fixed my train of thought! Lol, then I saw what you did here.
Yeah, a lot has been added to the game, the combat options books are good news, and the base monk is superb with just a few well chosen feats to get you what you want, more of a specialty order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignments have been around for over a century (literally). Unless people have this need to argue, get over it or play another game. It will be here for a long time to come. On the other hand, this isn't even D&D so maybe Paizo will remove the system in the next version of the system ...:p
Lol, I am actually interested in the new d&d coming out, and we will see what they will do with alignment.
On alignment in pf, even if you delete it entirely from your games, it will never truly leave. It is not so easily extinguished because you mighty gamer complained on a forum.
You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.
Well my point was that the paladin flavor can exist independently of the paladin mechanics, so why must they be so inexplicably tangled in regards to the actual paladin class? Why can't I be a lovable rogue, Robin Hood type character who steals from the rich and gives to the poor but also happens to have Divine Grace and can Smite true evil when he sees it?
Just gonna say this. AD&D Paladin ability. Detect Evil intent. Does not detect evil, but it does tell you if the person is range is seriously having evil thoughts. It is what I use in alignment free D&D
Detect Evil literally already does that.
If I remember right, detect evil reads auras. Detect evil intent didn't do that.
Detect Evil does both. It detects evil thoughts and other stuff too. Auras, high hd evil creatures that don't fall under Outsider or Undead but those too just easier.
Backwards compatibility.Well my point was that the paladin flavor can exist independently of the paladin mechanics, so why must they be so inexplicably tangled in regards to the actual paladin class? Why can't I be a lovable rogue, Robin Hood type character who steals from the rich and gives to the poor but also happens to have Divine Grace and can Smite true evil when he sees it?You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.
Yup, that's it basically. Seems more like people would like a classless system where they can pick and choose abilities as appropriate to their concept. Maybe that will be how PF 2.0 will be.
That's a freeform game and there are plenty of those already out there. Pathfinder is made with a license from WOTC I believe (correct me if I am wrong) and they are class based.
For now, who knows what the next edition will look like.
How do you go from alignment being really bad to classless system. I suppose I could have been missing the alignment restriction on wizard and rogue all these years but that seems unlikely.
chaoseffect was describing a desire to play a non-lawful rogue like character but with paladin like abilities. Obviously the easiest way to do something like that is to have a system where players choose what abilities best suit their character concept instead of playing a system where those choices have been made by the game designers. Just removing alignments isn't going to make the paladin class a good "Robin Hood" build platform.
How do you go from alignment being really bad to classless system. I suppose I could have been missing the alignment restriction on wizard and rogue all these years but that seems unlikely.chaoseffect was describing a desire to play a non-lawful rogue like character but with paladin like abilities. Obviously the easiest way to do something like that is to have a system where players choose what abilities best suit their character concept instead of playing a system where those choices have been made by the game designers. Just removing alignments isn't going to make the paladin class a good "Robin Hood" build platform.
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.
But if you remove the alignment system restrictions and a strict adherence to the "class name and paragraph say this so that is what it must be" mindset you are pretty much there. If you see the classes as nothing but flavorless build platforms (which some people may disagree with, but I've always been in the "flavor is up to you" camp) then there is no issue besides you as a player deciding if your concept is feasible based on the mechanics of the platform you chose.Ah, I see what you mean. When you say classless system you mean that the classes are the points that you use to build your character. But that works with or without the alignment system so I don't see how the two are related.
The issue is that flavor aside, the rules still arbitrarily restrict some classes behind an alignment wall. I really have no issue with the concept of having an alignment system, but when it interferes with mechanical choices for no good reason it annoys me.
I'm in the "Classes mean something and the descriptions are there for a reason" camp. I firmly believe in respecting the lore of the world. I also find any that calls flavour "meaningless fluff" (I know you didn't say that,) is insulting the writers because the stories, descriptions, everything that is not pure mechanics is flavour/fluff. We are playing the role of brave people venturing forth to explore this world with all its lore, not spreadsheets the game.
I agree with you that flavor is important; I see it as the descriptions are there for you to get a feel for how the class writer envisioned the class to work, but by no means should you be restricted into thinking, "well my guy is morally against hunting and the first line of Ranger says, 'For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey,' so I guess that means Ranger is off the table."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about stuff that has an alignment restriction because it was so deemed by the deities of the world? Like divine PrCs? If you don't act the way they want, why would they let you get a fraction of their power?
Personally I would never withdraw Divine power from a character for violating his Deity's tenets... just because the deity you think you are worshipping has forsaken you for kicking puppies doesn't mean that the deity of deception and dog hatred wouldn't like your style and step right in to fill that gap for you; pay lip service all you like but your actions show who you really belong to.
Besides, if you were an evil god what better way would there be for you to harm a good god then to empower a sociopath in his name? That's how I would play it anyway.
That's what I'm saying; just because you don't want the default flavor doesn't mean you want nothing but a spreadsheet.
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.
As I said, I like Paladins as Holy Champions of good. Removing that concept and those restrictions from the class makes it less appealing to me.
Of course you can remove alignment from the game. You just lose stuff I like to fix a problem I don't have.
Why would removing alignment affect the paladin in any negative way? Paladins are restricted by their code, not just their alignment. Nearly every paladin snafu ever could be prevented by simply properly formalizing the paladin code rather than using vague alignment terms. Once that's in place, there is literally no need for alignment restriction.
Essentially, removing alignment doesn't hurt your paladin at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am ok with replacing flavour but..ok here is my issue. When a player does it without informing the GM and clearing it with them.
Like when I made a cleric (hidden priest seemed like an alchemsit) of Nyarlethotep and was a dhampir. The flavour I wanted was unless I was directly screwing with (mean pranking) someone with my power, whenever I cast a spell that had a opposite version, flip a coin. 50/50 chance it is the opposite and big N is screwing with me for fun. That Outer One is more about being entertained than any real power play goals anyway.
I can see your point about discussing flavor with a DM beforehand just so you are on the same page, but what you are describing goes beyond flavor and into mechanics. Way I see it is that a player has near unlimited creativity is his character's background, personality, and goals, but mechanics are never mutable without DM approval.
Hell you could say your character was born with an evil, underdeveloped conjoined twin that tempts him toward cruelty if you really wanted for all I care, but if you try to say it gives you extra actions or gives an extra arm for reloading your gun, then we have an issue.
I don't particularly see how the Antipaladin story relates to flavor discussion, but I would consider out of game warnings paired with asking if he was really being good or just coldly calculated saving the man would better his cause as the best way to handle such a situation. Communication is good.
Too often it seems like the stories you hear related to falling go, "I didn't like what he did so I made that b+@+# into a featless fighter out of the blue."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as classes that can fall, my group alters things a bit, at least with regards to anti/paladins. If you look at the paladin class description and abilities there isn't a SINGLE thing that has to do with being lawful. No Smite Chaos ability, no Aura of Law, nothing. Its all about being the pinnacle of GOOD. The opposite is true for the anti-paladin (why they arent called blackguards I don't know); not a single Smite Law or ANYTHING relating to them being chaotic. So we simply lift the law-chaos requirement. Chaotic Good paladins are just as good as Lawful Good ones, just a different flavor.
Also it allows for intriguing conflicts; what happens when a Chaotic Good elvish nation contests the harvesting of wood by a Lawful Good human nation who NEEDS that wood for [insert genuinely good cause here]? What happens when they send their respective paladins to duke it out?
Good on Good violence, brothers and sisters.
On the note of barbarians and monks, those make sense. To me, anyways. A lawful character would, conceivably, try to control and suppress his anger (like Republic-era Jedi), while barbarians function by giving themselves to it (like your typical Dark Jedi or Sith). We houserule it so that ANYTHING with a rage ability must be non-lawful (exception for the rage spell, since its slightly mind-controlling). Maybe a lawful barbarian archetype could focus that rage, getting reduced benefit (like +2 STR/CON and +1 Will) but also reduced drawback (-1 AC, penalty on normally restricted skills, CL check to cast spells). But the core barbarian doesn't do that, and a well-ordered mind just doesn't fit with giving yourself to a wild and destructive emotion.
Likewise, being a (typical) monk requires having an orderly, focused and meditative mind; it'd make sense that you need that kind of inner calm to channel your ki. That said it doesn't make sense that loving freedom and spontaneity means you cant keep doing kung-fu, so our group takes away ki and related abilities from "fallen" monks, and gives them the chance to immediately take the Martial Artist archetype instead of atoning.
$0.02
|
I agree with you that flavor is important; I see it as the descriptions are there for you to get a feel for how the class writer envisioned the class to work, but by no means should you be restricted into thinking, "well my guy is morally against hunting and the first line of Ranger says, 'For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey,' so I guess that means Ranger is off the table."
This will come up a lot, if you have players who want to be 'friends of nature', and 'protector of the forest'.
They need to be able to track the native creatures of their habitat, to check they're safe, sneak to avoid being detected, or anger/startle them, and have the nature lore to understand when something is amiss.Ranger is a good fit for such a concept. They can focus their martial abilities against the outsiders who come wrecking their ecosystem.
It's slightly wierd mechanically, that in order to have the increased knowledge about the creatures they protect, it's mechanically advantageous to pick them as a favored enemy...
Would it hurt the game, if the player were to ask the benefits to be split, so that he gains the bonuses to skill checks when dealing with the wildlife under his protection, and the combat bonuses against the race that despoils his protected area?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a freeform game and there are plenty of those already out there. Pathfinder is made with a license from WOTC I believe (correct me if I am wrong) and they are class based.
Pathfinder is made based on the Open Gaming License (OGL) that was created by Wizards of the Coast (not to be confused with other licenses for open gaming that apply to other systems). Paize took a great deal of material from the System Resource Document (the material which Wizards of the Coast made available thru the OGL) but not all of it - for example, they have not touched the epic level rules, the deity rules, and psionic from WotC.
From what I remember, most of Paizo's focus at the time was updating the available portions of 3.5 to fix some of the issues that they felt affected the base game while remaining backwards compatible, with a focus on not invalidating the several adventure paths that they had already published under the 3.5 rules set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to think of lawful as logical and chaotic as emotional. Kirk and Spock are great examples, especially in Into Darkness. That was a textbook demonstration of Law (Spock) and Chaos (Kirk). Spock thinks things through to the most logical end, considering all relevant rules and regulations, and does what seems most appropriate and correct. Kirk loves, cries, lives for passion, risks everything for a friend, and acts almost purely on instinct. He still follows Starfleet code and the Prime Directive...so long as it doesn't conflict with what he thinks must be done. Then it's of secondary importance.
This is not to say that all paladins must be emotionless automatons, like Spock, but when taking the oath of the paladin order, an individual accepts that there is a right way for things to be done and things must be done that right way. I would imagine that there ARE some paladins who are naturally chaotic, but they respect the oath and the order enough to overlay their nature with a lawful veneer. See, that's just a cool, rich character.
That said, I view alignment as actually being two separate systems that are crammed into one rule. Alignment for characterization and alignment for mechanics are completely separate topics. This, in my opinion, is why we see so much conflict. Some people see one side of the coin, other people see the other side. Alignment for characterization is vague and convoluted and a vast expanse of shades of gray. A character should be a character first and an alignment second.
Alignment for mechanics is very cut-and-dry. If you're good, the spell affects you. If not, it doesn't. That's where the immutable natures of the universe are brought in.
This is why, in my own games, the vast majority of creatures and characters are unaligned - they are free to develop their character however sounds most fun. If they want an alignment to help guide their thoughts and actions, then great...but there is no mechanical consequence or effect of that alignment. Creatures and character who are inherently associated with an aligned power (i.e. clerics, paladins, outsiders, undead) DO actually have an alignment for mechanical purposes.
For example, Steve the elf ranger fights against the local lord. Any chance he gets, he captures and tortures the lord's guards brutally and mercilessly. Steve is a bad, bad dude. However, detect evil brings up nothing on Steve. He is unaligned. Even a great red dragon is unaligned, unless it's also a cleric of Tiamat or something.
Bob the dwarf cleric of [insert good deity] is right up there with Mother Teresa. However, his character is irrelevant. It is because he is inherently associated with the powerful force of good and derives his power from that source that protection from good is going to work perfectly against him.
That's my 2cp on all of this. I doubt it's worth even that.
I think that the game is best played when ANY alignment can take any action. Alignment then is just the mental hoops that the person has to jump through (or possibly the amount of cognative dissonance created) when a person is then developing their own self justifications for why what they did was ok.
Your paladin can torture people because he believes that if he doesn't the terrorists will win. Your CE Orc warlord can spare the children of his enemies because he believes that their lives will be worse off for it. Eitherway you are holding your actions against the standards that character has internalized.
Done this way alignment can also be used more like stage direction and less like philosophy. Generally, alginment is less useful than a simple 2 or 3 sentence discussion of a things motivation anyway.
There are reasons and justifications for anything, and I'm happy to go with some of them for a while. I don't like using alignment as an enforced philosophy class, do this or I punish you, but changes will occur over time if they keep acting contrary to their alignment. The paladin code is pretty clear, clerics shouldn't act against their god and have to be cautious as well.
Another little fantasy game I am running doesn't have alignment, but it does have sanity. Many actions take their cost, truly horrible acts really scar the character. You can go insane, you can suicide. Murder of another person (not some monstrous fiend) hits your sanity, but after more and more killing the loss stops happening and the player starts to really enjoy it, and their "sanity" improves as they accept who they are and the killing gets easier. The players got it and liked it, and now one of them is a bit of a monster (there and back again from that sanity loss), but another char is really damaged by what they did, and they haven't killed enough to really accept it, even if it could be justified.
On the subject of outsider alignment; can they change? I think everyone can agree that outsiders are largley made up of the stuff of their home plane, which includes a sort of alignment-made-manifest; devils are lawful evil not because they come from Hell but because their partially MADE of Hell. But their still thinking, intelligent creatures who can (presumably) make their own choices.
So, can outsiders change alignment? Can a chaotic evil succubus have a change of heart and become a paladin? Can a lawful good angel flip his s~!@ and become a barbarian? Or does being made of alignment goo force them to behave in a certain way, like some sort of inherent mind control?
On a related note, if, for example, a succubus DOES atone and become a paladin, is she still a succubus? Is she still a demon? Is she still an outsider at all? What does she detect as? Good because of her choices, evil because of her nature? Is she affected by smite evil or magic circle against good? All of the above??
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of outsider alignment; can they change? I think everyone can agree that outsiders are largley made up of the stuff of their home plane, which includes a sort of alignment-made-manifest; devils are lawful evil not because they come from Hell but because their partially MADE of Hell. But their still thinking, intelligent creatures who can (presumably) make their own choices.
So, can outsiders change alignment? Can a chaotic evil succubus have a change of heart and become a paladin? Can a lawful good angel flip his s%@# and become a barbarian? Or does being made of alignment goo force them to behave in a certain way, like some sort of inherent mind control?
On a related note, if, for example, a succubus DOES atone and become a paladin, is she still a succubus? Is she still a demon? Is she still an outsider at all? What does she detect as? Good because of her choices, evil because of her nature? Is she affected by smite evil or magic circle against good? All of the above??
All of these questions are answered rather definitively from a Golarion canon perspective in Wrath of the Righteous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the alignment subtypes have similar language as the following.
Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).
So yes they can have different alignments and they detect as both their new alignment and as their subtype alignment. A paladin succubus detects as lawful-chaotic-good-evil.
In my own homebrew games I give skeletons, zombies, lemures the evil subtype, but make their own alignment neutral.
Similarly, in another AP, there was a celestial driven rather nuts - it had dropped from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral, and lost the good subtype. (This was, to my recollection, the only change and it was after many, many millennia).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how alignment and redemption involving alignment change can be just one part of a good story to tell. Like when a party I dm for redeemed a CE sicko war criminal, into a CN hero and champion against monsters. If they had pushed the good standpoint they could have redeemed him further, but they remade him over time from the wretch he had been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do monks know I'm chaotic and refuse me advancement?
By making you sitting in your knees for 12 hours.
Alignment is absolutely descriptive! Except... the system of alignment restrictions is exactly the opposite.
Look at it this way when alignment is at its best it takes how you naturally play your character as a whole and attaches a label to that. And as such it is the exact opposite of restrictive. At the same time you have a system of alignment restrictions in place which punish you if you are not within a specific set of behaviors prescribed by one or more specific alignments. If you are playing one of these alignment restricted classes then alignment becomes a straight jacket you worry about in order to protect your class features.