Character isn't just descriptive, it is also the being of the character. Alignment is a part of that, but it doesn't have to be the whole story, e.g. more paladins could be played while focusing on the law and goodness less but working on other parts of their character, but being sure to still play them as heroes. So good heroes... and? Well what are you going to bring to the table, because alignment isn't everything, allegiances and friendships can be very important, as can what your character knows and how you the player indicates how that shapes them.
Here is a bit of a weird question.
When you think about organizing alignments in a grid pattern, how do you set it up. Which alignments go in which positions in the grid.
.
.
.
.
.
Here is I lay them out:
LG|LN|LE
NG|NN|NE
CG|CN|CE
Alignment at its core is a restriction; some people like restrictions, and some don't. More restrictions = more similarity, which can be a good thing. Example - Paladins, restricted to Lawful Good alignment, are the most similar to one another. As players, when we hear paladin, we probably all think of something close to one another, as opposed to when we hear "fighter" or "wizard."
If you view the classes as simply a collection of abilities, then of course you're going to dislike alignment (and other restrictions.) Using a classless system would seem to be preferable if this is your view.
Personally, I view the classes as more than simply a collection of abilities; they are a way of life. I read the description of the class, and then read the abilities/restrictions of the class in that context. It provides inspiration for role playing that character.
Personally, I view the classes as more than simply a collection of abilities; they are a way of life. I read the description of the class, and then read the abilities/restrictions of the class in that context. It provides inspiration for role playing that character.
On the other hand, if I think the restrictions don't actually represents the ideal its abilities are supposed to reflect, then there's a problem and its actively working against things. Restrictions are going to actively work against creativity. Unless you think uniformity is creativity in which case... I don't even know.
I do it the more traditional Lawful on the left, Chaos on the right, Good on the top, and Evil on the bottom.
On the other hand, if I think the restrictions don't actually represents the ideal its abilities are supposed to reflect, then there's a problem and its actively working against things. Restrictions are going to actively work against creativity. Unless you think uniformity is creativity in which case... I don't even know.
You disagree with the way a class is designed and that makes it a problem? Interesting view. I'm not sure what to say; the designers of the classes can't please all people all the time.
Restrictions do work against creativity, and that's not always a bad thing. Think of something iconic like Jedi Knights. The vast majority of them wield lightsabers and wear robes. Does that make them not interesting?
If each one of them had a different kind of weapon, like a lightsaber version of a mace, dagger, spear, machine gun, whatever, would that make them better?
Sometimes restrictions actually help to refine a concept.
the designers of the classes can't please all people all the time.
They can try, and they can definitely choose not to work directly against it. No one is perfect, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try!
Sometimes restrictions actually help to refine a concept.
To be fair, your talking about Jedi, and they vary pretty wildly between writer. Sometimes they aren't allowed to wear armor or they just can't use the force, other times they equip the star wars universe equivalent of heavy armor. Some use blasters, some use light sabers! But no ones going to use a medival mace in space. They use a spacemace!
Of course there's also a huge gap in a doing a narrative and making a game.
I'm usually CN. So I can do whatever I want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What wouldn't Iggy Pop do?"
that's my motto.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment at its core is a restriction; some people like restrictions, and some don't. More restrictions = more similarity, which can be a good thing. Example - Paladins, restricted to Lawful Good alignment, are the most similar to one another. As players, when we hear paladin, we probably all think of something close to one another, as opposed to when we hear "fighter" or "wizard."
If you view the classes as simply a collection of abilities, then of course you're going to dislike alignment (and other restrictions.) Using a classless system would seem to be preferable if this is your view.
Personally, I view the classes as more than simply a collection of abilities; they are a way of life. I read the description of the class, and then read the abilities/restrictions of the class in that context. It provides inspiration for role playing that character.
Problem is paladin is really a prestige class. Seriously, no other class works like it and it probably never should have been a base class to begin with. That cat is not going back in the bag unfortunately.
Really alignment aint no thing really for any other class. I mean unless you cant live within the descriptions for say a chaotic barb or a lawful monk. I still think there is tons of room to create a great character alongside alignment. Honestly I think some people just dont do well working inside a frame. The second they hear "you must follow this" they want to do the exact opposite. Choosing another class just wont do. /shrug.
Really alignment aint no thing really for any other class. I mean unless you cant live within the descriptions for say a chaotic barb or a lawful monk. I still think there is tons of room to create a great character alongside alignment.
I find its not so much about you living within the descriptor as much as someone else's subjective ideal of a descriptor being used objectively. I've seen monks fall for some really silly reasons.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really alignment aint no thing really for any other class. I mean unless you cant live within the descriptions for say a chaotic barb or a lawful monk. I still think there is tons of room to create a great character alongside alignment.I find its not so much about you living within the descriptor as much as someone else's subjective ideal of a descriptor being used objectively. I've seen monks fall for some really silly reasons.
I cant deny that. Some of the stories I hear on the forums are truly heartbreaking. I dont think simply removing alignment is going to make that heart ache go away. Symptom not the problem and all that.
I cant deny that. Some of the stories I hear on the forums are truly heartbreaking. I dont think simply removing alignment is going to make that heart ache go away. Symptom not the problem and all that.Really alignment aint no thing really for any other class. I mean unless you cant live within the descriptions for say a chaotic barb or a lawful monk. I still think there is tons of room to create a great character alongside alignment.I find its not so much about you living within the descriptor as much as someone else's subjective ideal of a descriptor being used objectively. I've seen monks fall for some really silly reasons.
Hard to get sick in your Appendix without a Appendix , if you know what I mean. I think that's a part of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually limitation can drive creativity. Since people mentioned Jedi, compare a New Hope with Phantom Menace. When Lucas made a New Hope, resources and tools were extremely limited despite this, or more likely because of this, it is seen as a superior movie over Phantom Menace, which had much more resources and tools to make.
I do it the more traditional Lawful on the left, Chaos on the right, Good on the top, and Evil on the bottom.
I don't doubt you are right, but why do you say this is traditional way? Was it displayed this way in an older edition or was just something that caught on. I saw some googled images with the layout you described, and it did seem the common way. It just got me thinking if there was some agreement made somewhere and I didn't hear about it.
Actually limitation can drive creativity. Since people mentioned Jedi, compare a New Hope with Phantom Menace. When Lucas made a New Hope, resources and tools were extremely limited despite this, or more likely because of this, it is seen as a superior movie over Phantom Menace, which had much more resources and tools to make.
I'm not sure if being deserted on a tropical island being forced to Macguyver things or using a limited budget as best you can is quiet the same as an arbitrary narrative restriction in a roleplay game denying you the character(or playstyle) you want.
|
|
Hard to get sick in your Appendix without a Appendix , if you know what I mean. I think that's a part of it.I cant deny that. Some of the stories I hear on the forums are truly heartbreaking. I dont think simply removing alignment is going to make that heart ache go away. Symptom not the problem and all that.Really alignment aint no thing really for any other class. I mean unless you cant live within the descriptions for say a chaotic barb or a lawful monk. I still think there is tons of room to create a great character alongside alignment.I find its not so much about you living within the descriptor as much as someone else's subjective ideal of a descriptor being used objectively. I've seen monks fall for some really silly reasons.
Assuming the appendix is what ails ya. Would suck to have it out only to be in pain again as soon as you are out of the hospital. Often the problem is heavy handed arbitrary GMs or problem players. Sometimes both, and often after years of adversarial relationships together they hunt for ways to torture one another. Alignment just happens to be a useful club in such matters. Though I wont discount simply not liking the system either. I can apreciate a gamer who knows the difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually limitation can drive creativity. Since people mentioned Jedi, compare a New Hope with Phantom Menace. When Lucas made a New Hope, resources and tools were extremely limited despite this, or more likely because of this, it is seen as a superior movie over Phantom Menace, which had much more resources and tools to make.I'm not sure if being deserted on a tropical island being forced to Macguyver things or using a limited budget as best you can is quiet the same as an arbitrary narrative restriction in a roleplay game denying you the character(or playstyle) you want.
It actually can be. Consider the earlier example of someone wanting to be a street brawler. They and their GM were frustrated because monks are lawful. That shows a lack of creativity on their parts.
1. There is no reason a street brawler couldn't be lawful. You can be lawful and be a criminal for example, not that a street brawler needs to be a criminal. But a monk could have worked for a street brawler.
2. Not all brawlers are monks. Monks might not even be the best brawlers. By exploring other means of building a brawler the character could have been more interesting than merely allowing a non-lawful monk.
Now, not all low budget movies are good, not all people stranded on desert islands survive, and not all limited characters are interesting, but that doesn't mean embracing limitations can't drive creativity. Otherwise, why not just have everyone play Pun-Pun.
1. There is no reason a street brawler couldn't be lawful. You can be lawful and be a criminal for example, not that a street brawler needs to be a criminal. But a monk could have worked for a street brawler.
2. Not all brawlers are monks. Monks might not even be the best brawlers. By exploring other means of building a brawler the character could have been more interesting than merely allowing a non-lawful monk.
Yeah - this is one of the reasons I think that the argument isn't really about concept, its about mechanics. The player sees mechanics in a class that they think would fit the idea in their head. They then want those mechanics. But then there's some type of restriction (alignment f/x.) Now the player is unhappy and complaining about poor design.
I don't encounter this problem often, and its because myself and my group don't look for mechanics that we want, we look for a class that we want. We read the class's description, if that sounds interesting, we move on to the mechanics. If we don't like the description, we look for a new class.
As I mentioned before, if the descriptions are not important to you, and all you're really concerned about is the mechanics, then a classless system would seem to be a better fit. That or homebrew.
Pointing out that a class that was created around a certain concept cannot be used to fulfill the other concept in your head that you want to do seems odd to me. If the classes were so generic that they could fit every concept they would lose a lot of the flavor IMO.
Yeah - this is one of the reasons I think that the argument isn't really about concept, its about mechanics. The player sees mechanics in a class that they think would fit the idea in their head. They then want those mechanics. But then there's some type of restriction (alignment f/x.) Now the player is unhappy and complaining about poor design.
To be fair, that is poor design if the mechanics fit the concept but you aren't allowed to use it because arbitrary.
we look for a class that we want.
To be fair, you play the class and roleplay the character. You better find some mechanics and a roleplaying concept you'll have fun playing. I don't think marrying them has to be bad, but I do think limiting yourself is, and limiting others is worse.
As I mentioned before, if the descriptions are not important to you, and all you're really concerned about is the mechanics, then a classless system would seem to be a better fit.
People aren't just interested in mechanics. They want to make their character. Its looking the other way to say this.
Nothing you said defends any sort of alignment restriction. It goes to "play another game if you don't like it" when you say to play a classless system, and "it isn't a problem for me so no need to change it" if someone says they have a problem with it and your response to say that you don't have a problem with it. Neither of these actually state whether alignment is helpful or not. It is a problem though, if people have trouble meeting their character concept or having fun because of arbitrary restrictions.
To be fair, that is poor design if the mechanics fit the concept but you aren't allowed to use it because arbitrary.
I don't know how you do that in a class-based system. If I want some mechanics from class one and some mechanics from class two and some mechanics from class three, then is it poor design that the game creators didn't offer me a pre-packaged class with all those mechanics I wanted?
I don't think marrying them has to be bad, but I do think limiting yourself is, and limiting others is worse.
I think some limitations are beneficial. Trying to give everyone exactly what they want is a recipe for disaster.
People aren't just interested in mechanics. They want to make their character. Its looking the other way to say this.
In a class-based system, you're given certain classes. With the classes that currently exist in the game, plus the multitude of archetype for each class, there are thousands of possible character types. Saying "poor design - the concept that I want cannot be done," seems silly.
Nothing you said defends any sort of alignment restriction. It goes to "play another game if you don't like it" when you say to play a classless system, and "it isn't a problem for me so no need to change it" if someone says they have a problem with it and your response to say that you don't have a problem with it.
I'm saying if the game is changed to the way you want, it will be less fun for me. As such, keeping some limitations is good in my eyes. If you don't want to pursue other systems to meet your gaming needs, then why not simply homebrew? That should allow you to get exactly what you want.
Neither of these actually state whether alignment is helpful or not. It is a problem though, if people have trouble meeting their character concept or having fun because of arbitrary restrictions.
A problem in a game where you can simply write some words down on paper and change the rules doesn't really seem like that much of a problem. If what you're saying is you want the core rules changed to the way that YOU think is best, how is that any better than saying I want them to stay the same because I think they're fine?
To be fair, that is poor design if the mechanics fit the concept but you aren't allowed to use it because arbitrary.
You keep using the bolded word (at least 3 times on this page alone), I don't think the meaning you believe it has, is its meaning.
Paladins are Lawful Good because that alignment is a good approximation for the feel of the idealized Arthurian and Charlemagnian knights that the paladin is based on. It is not a decision based on a whim (the meaning of arbitrary), it is a logical decision based on a desired feel for the class. Now you can certainly disagree with the design objective of the class, but suggesting there is no reason for the decision to put in the restriction is silly.
Now you can certainly disagree with the design objective of the class, but suggesting there is no reason for the decision to put in the restriction is silly.
Arbitrary doesn't just mean no reason, it can also mean...
1.based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles
2.random: chosen or determined at random
3.authoritarian: with unlimited power
In this case I'm referring to it being on whim, based on someone's personal(subjective) opinions rather than objective. Your ideal of a paladin is very different form mine, and from the pathfinder paladin, and from the first dnd paladin. All four are different paladins. When your ideals conflict, sometimes you have to consider maybe letting everyone be happy. Mind you the paladin is a very different beast from the monk who's a different beast than the barbarian. Paladin is probably the most cornered and one that brings out the most arguments because code and tradition and all sorts of ARGH! We could always pick on the bard too.
Edit: A big thing about restrictions like "I think barbarians should be chaotic to fit my ideal of a barbarian!" is that your telling people to conform to your game, rather than creating a game for others.
Lol, how strange and authoritarian that the master of the game and person running a setting defines what its parts and people are and involve.
Yes, a dm could define all barbarians as chaotics, and there would be many good reasons for it, such as setting up an epic struggle between the forces of technocracy and law against the natural, chaotic and barbaric. That old chestnut solidified in the rules.
In this case I'm referring to it being on whim, based on someone's personal(subjective) opinions rather than objective.
And that is not what "whim" means.
whim
noun
1. a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.
"she bought it on a whim"
I explained it and the choice wasn't unusual at all, the lawful good alignment is the only alignment that is a good approximation for the idealized Arthurian and Charlemagnian knights, which the paladin is based on.
Again, you can feel that paladins should actually just be (un)"holY" warriors and as such any alignment might be a good fit for all the different types of (un)holy warrior stereotypes out there. But just because you think the paladin should represent something different doesn't mean the idea to have it represent an idealized version of those knightly orders makes that choice a whim.
Lol, how strange and authoritarian that the master of the game and person running a setting defines what its parts and people are and involve.
Yes, a dm could define all barbarians as chaotics, and there would be many good reasons for it, such as setting up an epic struggle between the forces of technocracy and law against the natural, chaotic and barbaric. That old chestnut solidified in the rules.
Your talking about the DM, I was talking about the system. How many people do you think would make a restriction if it came in the box? How many if not? Wouldn't there be more potential for characters in a game with more possibilities? You don't have to be classless to do that. That's a false dichotomy isn't it? 2 extremes, with no median. You can have classes without restrictions, very easily! Classless mostly makes the mechanics more malleable.
In any case, its not really making an argument for alignment still, and I'm not sure if that was the topic to begin with... What was the topic? Something about using alignment correctly?
I knew a dm that made paladins tied to faith and the god's alignment, not LG. They ended up just being psycho clerics. Totally committed, absolutely obedient variant clerics.
It didn't really fly among the players, but the dm loved the idea.
Lol, how strange and authoritarian that the master of the game and person running a setting defines what its parts and people are and involve.
Yes, a dm could define all barbarians as chaotics, and there would be many good reasons for it, such as setting up an epic struggle between the forces of technocracy and law against the natural, chaotic and barbaric. That old chestnut solidified in the rules.
Your talking about the DM, I was talking about the system. How many people do you think would make a restriction if it came in the box? How many if not? Wouldn't there be more potential for characters in a game with more possibilities? You don't have to be classless to do that. That's a false dichotomy isn't it? 2 extremes, with no median. You can have classes without restrictions, very easily! Classless mostly makes the mechanics more malleable.
In any case, its not really making an argument for alignment still.
How many? I have no problem with restrictions, it is a part of making a setting, and such restrictions can be firmly a part of the rules. You know, like paladins being LG.
You can get worked up at how it hurts your freedom, but I clearly do not see restrictions in the same manner as you do.
How many? I have no problem with restrictions, it is a part of making a setting, and such restrictions can be firmly a part of the rules. You know, like paladins being LG.
Its not a part of the setting, its a part of the core rule book, which makes it a part of a lot of people's settings. Makes it part of the core rules.
As always, the alignment system has never worked well for me, mostly because Law and Chaos as described are not opposites at all.
Law taken to the extreme capsizes into madness, violence and brutality.
That sort of idea?
No Law and Chaos are fairly labeled as opposites.
Law values rules, organization, and people working together under a structured system to achieve greater results than they could alone. They hate when others violate the rules.
Chaos values freedom from restriction, individualism, independence, and seeing just how much of a difference one person can make on the world. They hate when others tell them what they can or can't do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably already been mentioned in the thread, but I pretty much ignore alignment entirely.
I build a character. I figure out how that character thinks. I pick an alignment that I think meshes with that. Then I ignore the alignment on the sheet and play the character the way I envision him/her thinking and acting. If the storyteller has a beef with the character and shifts the alignment, I don't care and change it on a the page. It doesn't change how I choose to play said character. If, in specific instances, this makes the character unable to function, I retire the character.
When I run, which is about 80% of the time with my group, I apply roughly the same concept. I just don't tell my players. That way, I've seen a good man sin and the good side of bad and it all still works.
Rock on. And ignore me.