The Alignments; what's your interpretation?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The way I do things, alignments are the way the gods perceive your actions. All of the gods have decided what constitutes "good," or "evil," or "lawful" or "chaotic" and a character's alignment is where they think that character stands on the scale.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

One problem with making general groups is that there are always exceptions.

It's actually quite fascinating seeing people make existentialist critiques to a game mechanic.

I agree, and I'm convinced that game writers have used NPCs to deconstruct the alignment system.

Just recently, I was rereading text about an old 2e NPC; he blackmails, he intimidates, he manipulates laws to gain power for himself and his organization, he's obsessed with power and success, and he champions a mercilessly laissez faire 'If you're poor it's your own fault so quit whining and start pulling up those bootstraps' philosophy. Classic Lawful Evil stuff, right?

Betcha can't guess which alignment appears in his stat block...

Spoiler:
Chaotic Good. I kid you not!

Attitude-wise and fashion-wise, this NPC totally fits the trope represented by the alignment that appears in his stat block, so a group of PCs could have lengthy dealings with him without getting that 'This dude is EEEVIL!' feeling. But once they see what he's about, or find themselves in his way...hooboy!


^I do sometimes wonder what is going on when on the same site or in the same books, I see descriptions of the alignments, and then see an NPC or monster description that seems best described by one o fthem, but then the stat block says something else entirely.


The problem is when those two aren't rules-legal. Radovan, tiefling Rogue-Monk of the Dave Gross-authored Pathfinder novels. Read them and he's not a lawful person. Look at his stat block and he's chaotic good. Try to follow the rules, and you have to derail the character for a few levels to give him the Monk levels his stat block says he has.

Alignment should be an after the fact thing; it shouldn't come into play until after the character's dead and retired. You want descriptive and not proscriptive? That's it, that's how you do it (or get a TARDIS).


Interesting discussion.
I am somewhat using the D&D system when it comes down to paladins, barbarians etc but for most others I ignore it as DM.

Has anybody tried to use the Palladium system for alignments?

Spoiler:

Good – Principled, these characters are, generally, strong and moral characters, the “boy scouts” if you will. They are the do-gooders of the group. They are usually compassionate, caring, cooperative and sincere.

Good – Scrupulous, these characters value freedom and life more than anything else, and despise those who would deprive others of them. They are the characters who are forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law and the greater good of the people. They are not vicious or vindictive, but are driven to right injustice. They will always attempt to work with or within the law if possible.

Selfish – Unprincipled, these are, basically good people who tend to be selfish, greedy and hold their personal freedom and welfare above almost everything else. They dislike confining laws, self-discipline and distrust authority. They are always looking for the best deal, associate with good and evil characters, continually lie and cheat and hate themselves for being loyal and helping others.

Selfish – Anarchist, these characters like to indulge themselves in everything. They are the insurgents, con-men, gamblers and high-rollers. Uncommitted freebooters seeking nothing more than self-gratification. They will consider doing anything, if the price is right. They are always teetering between good and evil, rebelling against and bending the law to fit their needs.

Evil – Miscreant, these self-serving, unscrupulous characters are out only for themselves. Power, glory, wealth and position, and anything else that will make their lives more comfortable are their only goals. It doesn’t matter to them who gets caught in the middle, as long as they always come out victorious and on top. They will lie, cheat and kill to attain their goals.

Evil – Aberrant, these characters are a little different. They are driven to attain their goals through force, power and intimidation. Yet they have their own personal code of honor and ethics. They expect loyalty from their minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death. Aberrant characters will always keep their word of honor and uphold any bargains. They define their terms and live by them, whether others like it or not.

Evil – Diabolic, this is a category of pure evil! it is where all the megalomaniacs, violent and most despicable characters fall. They are brutal, cruel killers who trust no one and have no value for anything or anyone that gets in their way.

If nothing else, to me the descriptions work better to imagine what my PCs or NPCs would do in certain situations.
Oh, and Kevin Siembieda does not like neutral alignments arguing they wouldn't do anything interesting/heroic/extraordinary as adventuring.

Ruyan.


I think a very important thing about alignments in PF is that they don't force the characters decisions but influence them.

So if you have decide between a lawfull good and a chaotic good action, the LG character will lean more toward the LG option, but this didn't mean that he can't choose the CG option if needed.

Also Alignment should be something fluent in the game and as a character evolves thru the levels he can also change his view of the world an with it his alignment.

I think the characters alignment is mostly defined by his experience, before and during play.

For me I would NEVER tell a player "You can't do that because you are [INSERT ALIGNMENT]" not even a Paladin, Druid or Monk!
On the other hand I would noramly never force an alignment change because of one (or a few) contra-alignment actions (depends on the action of course^^)).


Alignment doesn't force a character to do anything at all.

Alignment is a quick way to classify a creature's personality and motivations. It's not perfect, not everyone is going to match on every point. It's like the Myers-Brigg personality type indicator: A useful categorization framework that describes a person's morals and ethics.

I find alignment to be a useful role-playing aid. Of course, when I role-play, I essentially method-act the character. When I design a character, I figure out the personality first, and then pick an alignment that more-or-less matches.

It only gets prescriptive in terms of playing a character whose personality is so different from the player's that she has to work at it to make it believable. Especially if the character is a radical break from the player's usual style. ("Oh, right! I'm playing Lady Goodheart, not Fisthamner the Merciless. Sorry, I don't break the barstool over the dwarf's head.")

When I GM, I let the character's actions tell me what the character's alignment is, regardless of what is written on the character sheet. I tend not to tell the player, unless the character has abilities that depend on alignment. Even then, I'll usually couch the warning in terms of doctrine or duty rather than alignment. ("You slap the prisoner around to get him to talk? You sure? That's not very chivalrous." "You're talking up arms against the city guard? You sure? The holy text of Abadar clearly states that's a sin.") as opposed to "That's an evil act, Mr. Paladin," or "That's a chaotic act, Ms. Cleric of Abadar."


Kazaan wrote:
It isn't an "either-or" situation; it's both. Alignment and the actions you take are reciprocal in nature. Alignment guides action and action, in turn, guides alignment. If your actions and alignment are in agreement, then your character is in a state of balance. However, if your actions and alignment are out of agreement, then your character is out of balance and one or the other will shift. The original alignment should be tugging on the actions to bring them back to a balance point while the actions are tugging on the alignment to bring it into agreement with the new model of action.

I disagree, and I believe the rules do as well. Your old alignment does not influence the decisions you make in the future. If from this Thursday onward, you act in a chaotic good fashion, you are now chaotic good.


Tryn wrote:

I think a very important thing about alignments in PF is that they don't force the characters decisions but influence them.

So if you have decide between a lawfull good and a chaotic good action, the LG character will lean more toward the LG option, but this didn't mean that he can't choose the CG option if needed.

Again, I think you have this reversed.

If you have a choice between a lawful good and a chaotic good action, the character who leans more towards the LG option is the one who is lawful good.

The alignment written on your character sheet doesn't influence you -- you influence what is written. If you aren't choosing the LG option, you have decided not to be LG.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
^I do sometimes wonder what is going on when on the same site or in the same books, I see descriptions of the alignments, and then see an NPC or monster description that seems best described by one o fthem, but then the stat block says something else entirely.

Sometimes I think that game writers simply don't write down all their ideas, and so we end up with stat blocks that don't make sense when taken at face value. The classic example of this is the mindless zombie or skeleton: I suspect that at some point, some writer had a specific explanation for giving it the NE alignment. Like "The magic which torturously binds a fragment of this corpse's soul has turned it into a single-mindedly destructive creature," or some such. But that bit got lost somewhere before publication, and all that survived is the apparently contradictory 'Int --' and 'NE.'


RuyanVe wrote:
Oh, and Kevin Siembieda does not like neutral alignments arguing they wouldn't do anything interesting/heroic/extraordinary as adventuring.

No kidding! I read those descriptions, and my first thought was "So...Palladium has two flavors of good, and five flavors of evil!" I can imagine it working if your game is of the 'It's a crapsack world' variety, or if you assume that the vast majority of unnamed NPCs are unaligned.


Tectorman wrote:
The problem is when those two aren't rules-legal. Radovan, tiefling Rogue-Monk of the Dave Gross-authored Pathfinder novels. Read them and he's not a lawful person. Look at his stat block and he's chaotic good. Try to follow the rules, and you have to derail the character for a few levels to give him the Monk levels his stat block says he has.

Ha, maybe Radovan is Dave's way of taking a subtle jab at alignment and/or alignment restrictions?

Or maybe he's one of those authors who simply uses a known universe to tell a story that he wants to tell? ;)

Sovereign Court

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
But that bit got lost somewhere before publication, and all that survived is the apparently contradictory 'Int --' and 'NE.'

Sure - they're not going to try to steal from you etc. But their attempting to murder everyone and everything that comes too close for no reason (unlike animals they neither fear them nor want to eat them) seems pretty evil to me.

Arguably - they're also evil due to the necromantic aura they give off.

Liberty's Edge

To be fair though with Palladium it's three good, three selfish and three evil alignments. I kind of agree on his stance about the neutral alignments. As well unlike the D&D alignment system I never had problems as a player or GM with alignments. It's explained in point form what you can or cannot do. Which I prefer.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
It isn't an "either-or" situation; it's both. Alignment and the actions you take are reciprocal in nature. Alignment guides action and action, in turn, guides alignment. If your actions and alignment are in agreement, then your character is in a state of balance. However, if your actions and alignment are out of agreement, then your character is out of balance and one or the other will shift. The original alignment should be tugging on the actions to bring them back to a balance point while the actions are tugging on the alignment to bring it into agreement with the new model of action.
I disagree, and I believe the rules do as well. Your old alignment does not influence the decisions you make in the future. If from this Thursday onward, you act in a chaotic good fashion, you are now chaotic good.

Who said anything about a previous alignment influencing future decisions? I was talking in the context of a NG character taking non-NG actions. If their actions are leaning them towards TN, their NG alignment (the original alignment) should be trying to pull or tip their actions away from TN and towards NG. Simultaneously, their TN actions are working to tip their actual alignment away from NG and towards TN. Once they finally make the shift, though, they are firmly in TN territory and NG no longer has that pull.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my experience, true neutral seems to be the most misunderstood alignment of the lot. It seems like it's usually portrayed as either apathy to the point of paralysis, or some weird obsession with maintaining "balance" by rescuing orphans, then burning down their orphanage.

Personally, I like playing my true neutral characters as very focused on a specific goal, and not overly concerned with big moral issues. A fighter who wants to become the greatest swordsman of his era, and adventures to hone his skills The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells. A woman on a personal quest for vengeance against the campaign's Big Bad (or at least a high-placed underling). A farmer whose home and family are threatened, so he takes up the sword to defend them. And so on.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Well...

LG: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Paladin or a Monk.
NG: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Barbarian or a Druid.
CG: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Barbarian.
LN: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Druid or a Monk.
TN: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Barbarian or a Druid.
CN: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Barbarian or a Druid.
LE: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Monk.
NE: Put this on your sheet if you are playing a Barbarian or a Druid.
CE: Put this on your sheet if you are playing an Antipaladin or a Barbarian.


Kazaan wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
It isn't an "either-or" situation; it's both. Alignment and the actions you take are reciprocal in nature. Alignment guides action and action, in turn, guides alignment. If your actions and alignment are in agreement, then your character is in a state of balance. However, if your actions and alignment are out of agreement, then your character is out of balance and one or the other will shift. The original alignment should be tugging on the actions to bring them back to a balance point while the actions are tugging on the alignment to bring it into agreement with the new model of action.
I disagree, and I believe the rules do as well. Your old alignment does not influence the decisions you make in the future. If from this Thursday onward, you act in a chaotic good fashion, you are now chaotic good.
Who said anything about a previous alignment influencing future decisions?

You. Highlighted above. And again:

Quote:
I was talking in the context of a NG character taking non-NG actions. If their actions are leaning them towards TN, their NG alignment (the original alignment) should be trying to pull or tip their actions away from TN and towards NG.

This is absolutely false -- nothing is trying to "pull or tip" or otherwise influence their actions in any direction.


Well, if I'm to throw a hat at this, it would have to be thus: All alignments actually exist in relative relationships.
Take LG vs CG - both are about bringing betterment in some form, yet the former would be about methodical change and/or deontological ethics with the latter being about just dealing with what happens. However, LE vs CE may be seen as the difference between someone who doesn't care for freedom in the way of their ends while the latter is about a freedom from any restricting strictures.
Conversely, LE and CG can both be argued as an "ends justify means" set up. CG being where someone does what they have to to bring a better tomorrow. The latter being where someone does what they have to to bring a better tomorrow (deliberate repetition there). The difference is what they respect; a CG character (at most typical) respects individual freedom of choice; LE respects strength of the whole.
However, an LG character may respect choice - after all, why preserve a society that treads down the common folk? And a chaotic evil character hardly accepts your choice in the matter of being stabbed.
Problem is, we further hit a point of a LG character would be loathe to accept an individualist who risks social stability because their laws require it to be upheld - The CG guy who insults the king undermines his courts, after all. If this will make the courts unreliable, how can he let them continue unabated? Without those laws he sees as necessary carrying confidence, his vision of a good society collapses.
What I'm trying to get across is a contradiction that comes about trying to define these things individually.
To take the OP, much as the definitions are fine:

Chaotic Good wrote:
These characters want others to be happy and do good things simply because it feels good to be good.
Chaotic Evil wrote:
This is a character who not only lives by the creedo of doing whatever they want to do

Both are chaotic, yet one respects others. A dialectic of good, and evil, yes?

Lawful Good wrote:
after the initial threat is finished, he or she spends time to help the village prepare to defend itself by establishing training regimes for defenders, evacuation plans, and other orderly methods to ensure they can survive on their own when the character leaves.
Lawful Evil wrote:
A character of the Lawful Evil type lives by the creedo "the end justifies the means". They have a Purpose, a goal they want to achieve, and whether they view it as ultimately noble or a self-admittedly selfish one doesn't matter.

To a chaotic good character - given "Liberty and freedom are all-important" to them, there is no dialectical difference. Indeed, these two in the given lines can be wholly compatible (though a selfish goal wouldn't fit).

Further:
Chaotic Neutral wrote:
Selfish desire rules the heart of the Chaotic Neutral character. These individuals care only about one thing: satisfying their own personal wants and whims. They don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and hurting people certainly isn't the goal, but if they have to hurt someone, or break a promise, or do something wrong, well, then they'll do it.

Right here, to a LG person, there is no difference from CE (excluding chaotic stupid) - after all, if you're going to hurt someone for your ends, why does the trigger matter? You're still a threat to societal security.

On the other hand - what we do is create a sliding scale from what might intuitively seem good from LG to CE. Which is a) At odds with the alignment system and b) Would make false assertions.
Indeed, on a fundamental level - let's define neutral. We hence have to define "not neutral", in doing so - distinguishing properties become necessary. The rationale of two axes' functions is because the poles of these are different in some fundamental ways. Hence they inherently require contrast.
So, to reiterate what I want to get across - I don't think the alignment system, if you were to seriously treat it, works (at least, not by individual definitions). Either you make definitions to curb any contradictions - inherently over-complicating them and making them unplayable, or they are wide churches which means a character may fit vast tracts of the grid - making it a bit redundant.
Now, would I agree that we can define Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil? Yes. But LG in a vacuum? No. Even ignoring the "not LG" idea. After all, a LG character believes in a coded society - instantly, we run against a position - "Where does this code end?" To take a coded society as the best means to aid others, we insist on a complex, deep code that aims to achieve some good. Good for who? Well, as many as possible. Utilitarianism hurts individuals does it not, at odds with "benevolence"? Fine, LG means protecting individuals too. How? Further laws. What if those laws are hidden behind by others? We change laws to stop that. My point is you end up insisting on a society with a bureaucracy to make India look easy to do legal work in. An extension of control so far may be found harmful. Thus, it would stop being good.

Sovereign Court

Chengar Qordath wrote:
The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells.

Ash Ketchum the wizard? "Gotta Learn 'Em All!"


<sarcasm>
LG = Evil in all forms must be destroyed!...unless they aren't breaking the law.
NG = Must do the right thing all the time.
CG = You MUST fight THE MAN! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
LN = Law is God.
TN = I don't want to do anything ever or I must commit an evil act for every good thing I do because balance!
CN = Whateva, I do what I want!
LE = Why, yes, I will gladly exploit this loophole to cause pain and suffering of innocents because it profits me.
NE = You want me to kill someone? Here's my price.
CE = KILL! MAIM! DESTROY! FOR TEH EVULS!

No, I don't dislike the alignment system at all.</sarcasm>

Seriously though, though grossly exaggerated, that's what I see in my games with alignment. Yes, I realize that is a problem with the players, not the system. No, I will not find another group, because these people are friends as well as gamers, and everyone else around here plays 4e anyways.


Physically Unfeasible wrote:
Now, would I agree that we can define Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil? Yes. But LG in a vacuum? No. Even ignoring the "not LG" idea. After all, a LG character believes in a coded society - instantly, we run against a position - "Where does this code end?" To take a coded society as the best means to aid others, we insist on a complex, deep code that aims to achieve some good. Good for who? Well, as many as possible. Utilitarianism hurts individuals does it not, at odds with "benevolence"? Fine, LG means protecting individuals too. How? Further laws. What if those laws are hidden behind by others? We change laws to stop that.

You're applying real-world confusion to a world where Good and Evil are objectively detectable qualities, and I'm not sure that's appropriate. If you're not sure whether or not a proposed policy is Good, you can commune and get an authoritative answer.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
If I really were to use an alignment system, I'd actually use the one from 4th ed. The things that Alignment is supposed to cover is so broad and subjective that it could never fit nicely into those 9 categories trying to adjust the two sliders, but if we're going to do it, might as well make it easy on ourselves and use 1 slider. With fourth edition I can at least describe the alignments with a single word about what is usually most important to them. It also makes it easy to draw factions fairly easily.
Ivan Rûski wrote:
Seriously though, though grossly exaggerated, that's what I see in my games with alignment. Yes, I realize that is a problem with the players, not the system. No, I will not find another group, because these people are friends as well as gamers, and everyone else around here plays 4e anyways.

Ironically, playing 4e with your mates would probably make your alignment woes evaporate faster than alcohol in a desert storm, regardless of whatever gripes you may have with 4e. In addition to the different scheme that Ragnarok Aeon describes, alignment is essentially vestigial in 4e, so there's no real need to even write one on your CS.

:)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
Now, would I agree that we can define Law vs Chaos and Good vs Evil? Yes. But LG in a vacuum? No. Even ignoring the "not LG" idea. After all, a LG character believes in a coded society - instantly, we run against a position - "Where does this code end?" To take a coded society as the best means to aid others, we insist on a complex, deep code that aims to achieve some good. Good for who? Well, as many as possible. Utilitarianism hurts individuals does it not, at odds with "benevolence"? Fine, LG means protecting individuals too. How? Further laws. What if those laws are hidden behind by others? We change laws to stop that.
You're applying real-world confusion to a world where Good and Evil are objectively detectable qualities, and I'm not sure that's appropriate. If you're not sure whether or not a proposed policy is Good, you can commune and get an authoritative answer.

This is true. Problem is, it assumes the answer is the same for all creatures of a particular alignment subtype. Case in point, from the core deities of the Golarion setting: Torag vs Iomedae vs Erastil.

Now, we can draw on common themes from these - but that falls into the "broad church" point (which is, to be honest, how I prefer to treat it if at an end).

Admittedly, I am exercising a theory here hoping to stimulate talk beyond "Alignment is always bad, and you should feel bad trying it".


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Ironically, playing 4e with your mates would probably make your alignment woes evaporate faster than alcohol in a desert storm, regardless of whatever gripes you may have with 4e. In addition to the different scheme that Ragnarok Aeon describes, alignment is essentially vestigial in 4e, so there's no real need to even write one on your CS.

:)

I'm aware. I personally don't have all that many problems with 4e other than I've too much invested in 3.x/Pathfinder to dump it for a new system. My wife hates it, as do my other players. Plus as I said, my players are my friends. The other groups in the area are acquaintances at best for the most part. I'm good friends with 2 4e players, and they play in different groups.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

In my experience, true neutral seems to be the most misunderstood alignment of the lot. It seems like it's usually portrayed as either apathy to the point of paralysis, or some weird obsession with maintaining "balance" by rescuing orphans, then burning down their orphanage.

Personally, I like playing my true neutral characters as very focused on a specific goal, and not overly concerned with big moral issues. A fighter who wants to become the greatest swordsman of his era, and adventures to hone his skills The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells. A woman on a personal quest for vengeance against the campaign's Big Bad (or at least a high-placed underling). A farmer whose home and family are threatened, so he takes up the sword to defend them. And so on.

Yeah, I too find it a bit unsettling how many gamers still adhere to 2e's consiously-neutral definition of TN, and/or the Futurama "What turns a man Neutral?" definition.

Aelryinth wrote:

True Neutral is a philosophical stance against extremes of behavior and belief, consciously selected. It generally focuses on harmony with the environment and blood ties being the important thing, providing and holding ground of your own. Druids are the exemplars of True Neutrality.

False Neutral is the apathy, uncaring attitude, or complete lack of alignment that isn't a philosophy, it's just an existence. Animals and plants and elementals are the exemplars of False Neutrality. Humans tend to waver between the two extremes depending on how smart they are.

==Aelryinth

I mean, if you're playing a quirky sort of Disney-esque campaign, I can see it working. But in a game world that aims at any degree of demographic believability, I see TN as the every-man alignment. TNs care about themselves, their families, and their friends. Not necessarily in that order. They probably have good intentions, and pay lip service to church and state, but everyone and everything else is far far down the list. There's a lot of space within the TN alignment, and the majority of humanity falls somewhere within it.

I think my ideas of alignment differ somewhat from the ones in the book -- it's been a while since I've read them carefully -- but I think my ideas are better. ;)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
It isn't an "either-or" situation; it's both. Alignment and the actions you take are reciprocal in nature. Alignment guides action and action, in turn, guides alignment. If your actions and alignment are in agreement, then your character is in a state of balance. However, if your actions and alignment are out of agreement, then your character is out of balance and one or the other will shift. The original alignment should be tugging on the actions to bring them back to a balance point while the actions are tugging on the alignment to bring it into agreement with the new model of action.
I disagree, and I believe the rules do as well. Your old alignment does not influence the decisions you make in the future. If from this Thursday onward, you act in a chaotic good fashion, you are now chaotic good.
Who said anything about a previous alignment influencing future decisions?

You. Highlighted above. And again:

Quote:
I was talking in the context of a NG character taking non-NG actions. If their actions are leaning them towards TN, their NG alignment (the original alignment) should be trying to pull or tip their actions away from TN and towards NG.
This is absolutely false -- nothing is trying to "pull or tip" or otherwise influence their actions in any direction.

And, as I said, you misinterpreted what I wrote as original implying a change. I clearly explained for your benefit that I was talking about the original (written) alignment being at odds with the actions taken. As for the alignment not pulling or influencing their actions, it isn't "absolutely" false; only situationally false. A player who doesn't sufficiently know how to roleplay alignment issues would have nothing influencing their actions. A player who has sufficient expertise in roleplaying alignment interactions and character dynamics, however, would apply such a pull upon themselves.

Shadow Lodge

Orfamay Quest wrote:

If you have a choice between a lawful good and a chaotic good action, the character who leans more towards the LG option is the one who is lawful good.

The alignment written on your character sheet doesn't influence you -- you influence what is written. If you aren't choosing the LG option, you have decided not to be LG.

I'm not sure if this is your intent, but focusing on a single action sounds too much like alignment as a straightjacket. I would say instead that the character who usually leans more towards and chooses the LG action is LG, even if they occasionally lean towards a non-LG action.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
It isn't an "either-or" situation; it's both. Alignment and the actions you take are reciprocal in nature. Alignment guides action and action, in turn, guides alignment. If your actions and alignment are in agreement, then your character is in a state of balance. However, if your actions and alignment are out of agreement, then your character is out of balance and one or the other will shift. The original alignment should be tugging on the actions to bring them back to a balance point while the actions are tugging on the alignment to bring it into agreement with the new model of action.
Kazaan wrote:
I was talking in the context of a NG character taking non-NG actions. If their actions are leaning them towards TN, their NG alignment (the original alignment) should be trying to pull or tip their actions away from TN and towards NG.
This is absolutely false -- nothing is trying to "pull or tip" or otherwise influence their actions in any direction.

There is - the character's personality.

If I describe my character as NG, I mean that that character values others' lives, happiness, and dignity and wants to help others, even at cost to themselves. They might do non-NG things, but they lean in a NG direction because their own conscience and values are pulling them in that direction. If they ignore their conscience and keep acting in a TN way then they will soon be more accurately described as a TN character - someone who doesn't lean towards NG actions, is not willing to help others at cost to themselves, and isn't really bothered by that fact. But the transition probably means dealing with a guilty conscience for a little while.

It's not that there's a supernatural force preventing alignment shift, just that alignment describes major beliefs and values and most people don't change major beliefs or values lightly. It either takes time or a kick in the pants.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
But that bit got lost somewhere before publication, and all that survived is the apparently contradictory 'Int --' and 'NE.'

Sure - they're not going to try to steal from you etc. But their attempting to murder everyone and everything that comes too close for no reason (unlike animals they neither fear them nor want to eat them) seems pretty evil to me.

Arguably - they're also evil due to the necromantic aura they give off.

I think we can all agree that trying to murder things for no reason certainly qualifies a creature as Evil. The controversy comes from the fact that their description and thus their behavior is ambiguous -- for example, skeletons are described as 'mindless automatons.' Pop culture and cults zombie flicks suggest that zombies and skellies act just as murderously as you say, but going by their D&D/PF description, a DM could quite reasonably play them as fleshy robots that will only attack things if specifically ordered to do so:

"A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own, and takes no initiative." This description is basically a reworded version of the animated objects description. And as animated objects are also mindless, but always neutral, I'm sure you can see where the controversy comes from.

I personally prefer your take; not only because it agrees with the NE label, but simply because murderous roving leaderless undead are more fun than fleshy robots. (And besides, fleshy robots already exist in the form of the flesh golem!) My point is some explanations and some alignment tags seem to have gotten their wires crossed somewhere. Mistakes seem to have been made.


Ivan Rûski wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Ironically, playing 4e with your mates would probably make your alignment woes evaporate faster than alcohol in a desert storm, regardless of whatever gripes you may have with 4e. In addition to the different scheme that Ragnarok Aeon describes, alignment is essentially vestigial in 4e, so there's no real need to even write one on your CS.

:)

I'm aware. I personally don't have all that many problems with 4e other than I've too much invested in 3.x/Pathfinder to dump it for a new system. My wife hates it, as do my other players. Plus as I said, my players are my friends. The other groups in the area are acquaintances at best for the most part. I'm good friends with 2 4e players, and they play in different groups.

Ah, I see. That's a shame. :(


Tectorman wrote:

The problem is when those two aren't rules-legal. Radovan, tiefling Rogue-Monk of the Dave Gross-authored Pathfinder novels. Read them and he's not a lawful person. Look at his stat block and he's chaotic good. Try to follow the rules, and you have to derail the character for a few levels to give him the Monk levels his stat block says he has.

{. . .}

If Radovan got his Monk levels all before we start seeing him, this could actually work, since the penalty to Monks for becoming non-Lawful is less than the penalty to Paladins -- they don't lose the abilities they already have, but just can't get any more Monk levels. Alternatively, if he was actually a Martial Artist archetype of Monk, which can be of any alignment, then no problem even for his early levels -- this might be the more likely answer, since everything other than alignment that Martial Artist alters comes at a higher level than he has attained; Martial Artist trades out Ki and (after errata) all Ki abilities, so watch and see if he ever uses anything that seems like a Ki ability if he gains more Monk levels.


I don't actually play 4E, but I can still appreciate elements of it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

In my experience, true neutral seems to be the most misunderstood alignment of the lot. It seems like it's usually portrayed as either apathy to the point of paralysis, or some weird obsession with maintaining "balance" by rescuing orphans, then burning down their orphanage.

Personally, I like playing my true neutral characters as very focused on a specific goal, and not overly concerned with big moral issues. A fighter who wants to become the greatest swordsman of his era, and adventures to hone his skills The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells. A woman on a personal quest for vengeance against the campaign's Big Bad (or at least a high-placed underling). A farmer whose home and family are threatened, so he takes up the sword to defend them. And so on.

Yeah, I too find it a bit unsettling how many gamers still adhere to 2e's consiously-neutral definition of TN, and/or the Futurama "What turns a man Neutral?" definition.

Aelryinth wrote:

True Neutral is a philosophical stance against extremes of behavior and belief, consciously selected. It generally focuses on harmony with the environment and blood ties being the important thing, providing and holding ground of your own. Druids are the exemplars of True Neutrality.

False Neutral is the apathy, uncaring attitude, or complete lack of alignment that isn't a philosophy, it's just an existence. Animals and plants and elementals are the exemplars of False Neutrality. Humans tend to waver between the two extremes depending on how smart they are.

==Aelryinth

I mean, if you're playing a quirky sort of Disney-esque campaign, I can see it working. But in a game world that aims at any degree of demographic believability, I see TN as the every-man alignment. TNs care about themselves, their families, and their friends. Not necessarily in that order. They probably have good intentions, and pay lip service to church and state, but everyone and everything else is far far down the list. There's a lot of...

IN PF humans are inherently neutral. They care for themselves and their families and perhaps their communities, and rapidly display disinterest outside of this.

They are basically squarely between False and True neutral, between not smart enough to make a choice and actively choosing a Neutral stance. What some call apathy is disinterest outside the range of their concerns; anything inside their range of concerns they can be VERY interested in, very quickly.
Humans veer away from a Neutral lifestyle when the benefits of the other lifestyles are manifested, AND when others go along with it. Being LG in a world where everyone is N or CN would be trying at the best of times, especially if everyone shamelessly takes advantage of you. However, if shown the benefits of being LG and how it benefits many people all working together, people will veer in that direction as a society because it helps everyone if everyone is on the same page.

N societies tend to be rural, small and clannish...they don't really accomplish great things over time, they just exist from day to day and pass on to their children. Great advancements are made by venturing away from traditional lifestyles and changing what is natural to something civilized.
Countries that are Neutral (and that are actually countries) are usually firmly True Neutral with druidic ties...they've made an active choice to embrace Neutrality as a philosophy.

==Aelryinth


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells.
Ash Ketchum the wizard? "Gotta Learn 'Em All!"

That's actually not a bad parallel. They're both fall into the broad archetype of adventuring characters whose primary goal is utter mastery of their chosen craft/skills/profession. Whether it's "The greatest swordsman" "The Supreme Archmage" or, yes, "The Best Pokemon Master" it all falls into same category.

Sovereign Court

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells.
Ash Ketchum the wizard? "Gotta Learn 'Em All!"
That's actually not a bad parallel. They're both fall into the broad archetype of adventuring characters whose primary goal is utter mastery of their chosen craft/skills/profession. Whether it's "The greatest swordsman" "The Supreme Archmage" or, yes, "The Best Pokemon Master" it all falls into same category.

See - that makes me want to play that sort of wizard, and whenever I do something awesome, I play my theme song. "Gotta be the very best, like no one ever was..."

Actually - I already have a neutral PFS bard who's in a similar vein. He mostly adventures because he wants the glory, and for tales of his deeds to be known throughout the land. A bit different, since in his case it's something outside of himself that he's after, while in the cases you mention it's internal achievement.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

The problem is when those two aren't rules-legal. Radovan, tiefling Rogue-Monk of the Dave Gross-authored Pathfinder novels. Read them and he's not a lawful person. Look at his stat block and he's chaotic good. Try to follow the rules, and you have to derail the character for a few levels to give him the Monk levels his stat block says he has.

{. . .}

If Radovan got his Monk levels all before we start seeing him, this could actually work, since the penalty to Monks for becoming non-Lawful is less than the penalty to Paladins -- they don't lose the abilities they already have, but just can't get any more Monk levels. Alternatively, if he was actually a Martial Artist archetype of Monk, which can be of any alignment, then no problem even for his early levels -- this might be the more likely answer, since everything other than alignment that Martial Artist alters comes at a higher level than he has attained; Martial Artist trades out Ki and (after errata) all Ki abilities, so watch and see if he ever uses anything that seems like a Ki ability if he gains more Monk levels.

Nope.

Here's the sequence of events:

Book 1: Prince of Wolves. The first novel we see him in. He demonstrates a whole bunch of Rogue abilities, mostly being sneaky and backstabby and being very knowledgeable about the underside of society where his employer/friend, Count Varian Jeggare (sp?), is more accustomed to high society. His martial arts knowledge is summed up to knowing that grabbing a man's privates is very effective at stopping him.

Book 2: Master of Devils. He and Varian are in Tian Xia and get separated. Radovan is captured by Burning Cloud Devil, a one-armed Sorcerer-Monk who needs his unique combination of mortal and infernal energy to be his weapon against a Celestial Dragon. He learns things up to and including Abundant Step and the Quivering Palm. His devil heritage influencing the nature of his ki is a significant plot point so no, Radovan is not a Martial Artist, he's a ki-using Monk. Nor does his attitude change significantly while he's learning all this; he's still contemptuous of authority as he ever was.

Book 3: Queen of Thorns. We see Varian and Radovan back in Avistan, near Kyonin. He doesn't demonstrate near the Monk abilities we saw in Master of Devils, though we do still see him practicing his forms in the morning.

Book 4: King of Chaos: No more significant mention of his specifically-Monk abilities.

Inner Sea Combat: This Campaign Setting book establishes him as a CG Rogue 5/Monk 2.

So it's a nice theory, but it's wrong. Radovan explicitly starts as a chaotic Rogue, gains levels in some form of Ki-using Monk while not being lawful , and then goes back to Rogue.

Though yes, a PFS player would have to play his character differently than he ultimately intends to, just to game the system for a while until he has what he needs, before he can finally start playing the character he had wanted to have been playing since day one.

That's alignment hijacking the story and interfering with roleplaying. And it shouldn't happen.

Scarab Sages

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
the Futurama "What turns a man Neutral?" definition.

To be fair, Futurama's neutral is more political neutrality combined with apathy. It isn't really what pathfinder's neutral alignment is addressing.

I do love that episode. Very wonderful.

I'm running a True neutral blight druid in our skull and shackles group (I'm the "stinky" druid). I'm selfish, and I enjoy the company of our group. Of the three encounters last session, I slept through one of them, didn't even try to wake up. I was in my nice little web shelter while they were fighting undead, too late at night...I deserve my sleep. One PC got a bit annoyed at this and tore into my shelter after the encounter, only to start vomiting at my "stench." This is why you knock, I noted to myself. I'm also of the strong opinion that if his PC was meant to wake me, he would have resisted the smell more effectively. Clearly, this was not the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells.
Ash Ketchum the wizard? "Gotta Learn 'Em All!"
That's actually not a bad parallel. They're both fall into the broad archetype of adventuring characters whose primary goal is utter mastery of their chosen craft/skills/profession. Whether it's "The greatest swordsman" "The Supreme Archmage" or, yes, "The Best Pokemon Master" it all falls into same category.

See - that makes me want to play that sort of wizard, and whenever I do something awesome, I play my theme song. "Gotta be the very best, like no one ever was..."

Actually - I already have a neutral PFS bard who's in a similar vein. He mostly adventures because he wants the glory, and for tales of his deeds to be known throughout the land. A bit different, since in his case it's something outside of himself that he's after, while in the cases you mention it's internal achievement.

Yeah, that's another perfectly good way to do it.

"Why am I an adventurer? It's not for some BS reason like wanting to make the world a better place. It's for gold, glory, and my lifelong dream of retiring to a private island filled with beautiful naked women."


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
The wizard who wants to learn ALL the spells.
Ash Ketchum the wizard? "Gotta Learn 'Em All!"
That's actually not a bad parallel. They're both fall into the broad archetype of adventuring characters whose primary goal is utter mastery of their chosen craft/skills/profession. Whether it's "The greatest swordsman" "The Supreme Archmage" or, yes, "The Best Pokemon Master" it all falls into same category.

See - that makes me want to play that sort of wizard, and whenever I do something awesome, I play my theme song. "Gotta be the very best, like no one ever was..."

Actually - I already have a neutral PFS bard who's in a similar vein. He mostly adventures because he wants the glory, and for tales of his deeds to be known throughout the land. A bit different, since in his case it's something outside of himself that he's after, while in the cases you mention it's internal achievement.

Yeah, that's another perfectly good way to do it.

"Why am I an adventurer? It's not for some BS reason like wanting to make the world a better place. It's for gold, glory, and my lifelong dream of retiring to a private island filled with beautiful naked women."

Does this particular adventurer not even like to fly and take carriages instead?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
The problem is when those two aren't rules-legal. Radovan, tiefling Rogue-Monk of the Dave Gross-authored Pathfinder novels. Read them and he's not a lawful person. Look at his stat block and he's chaotic good. Try to follow the rules, and you have to derail the character for a few levels to give him the Monk levels his stat block says he has.

Ha, maybe Radovan is Dave's way of taking a subtle jab at alignment and/or alignment restrictions?

Or maybe he's one of those authors who simply uses a known universe to tell a story that he wants to tell? ;)

And here's an absolutely insane conspiracy theory.

The folks at Paizo are actually using the Pathfinder Campaign Setting as a scathing condemnation of alignment.

What do I mean by that?

It's like this:

Alignment is something tangible and measurable in this setting. You don't just believe in it or not, forces of good, law, evil, and chaos actually exist.

The only logical outcome is that someone, somewhere is going to apply the scientific method to it. If it's measurable, someone will try to measure it.

But what would that require? You'd have to have an inexhaustible supply of test subjects. You'd need to have or create a wide variety of test conditions. Which would require a high capacity for manipulating events on both a global scale and on a multi-millenial scale.

Take note because I've just described the aboleths.

They would be able to engineer events over the entire course of Golarion's history to map out morality itself. Use every paladin order on the planet as specimens in a rat's maze to determine all the different series of events that do and don't cause a paladin to fall.

The ultimate goal being the means to make sapience itself obsolete. Remove all why and there's no point. Kind of like Darkseid's Anti-Life Equation. If morality can be anticipated and predicted completely, then what would happen to the River of Souls and the balance of the multiverse except collapse?

Making all paladins the unwitting tools of the greatest evil to be perpetrated against sentient life. Therefore, traveling Golarion and abolishing every paladin order would be the greatest act of good the Pathfinder setting would ever know.

And should no one figure this out, the last PFS module would have the heroes fail in stopping the implosion of the multiverse and the victory of the aboleths. And from the smoldering remains of the multiverse, a new reality emerges.

"Behold! Pathfinder 2nd Edition! Now we're going to try this without alignment!"

/endconspiracytheory

Wishful thinking, I know. Maybe Unchained will nix the alignment rules.


The alignment system is a I think a helpful tool. I would not want to see it go. It is a loose reference though and will change table to table.

Real world moralities and ethics consume people and they are still debating it. Do you really expect a rpg character aide to solve the problem.


Gnomezrule wrote:

The alignment system is a I think a helpful tool. I would not want to see it go. It is a loose reference though and will change table to table.

Real world moralities and ethics consume people and they are still debating it. Do you really expect a rpg character aide to solve the problem.

Not going to debate that the alignment system is a helpful tool to some, but you can't pigeonhole real world moralities and ethics. Even fictional settings outside of D&D don't fit in them very well ie) Batman.

Some people have seen game wreckers used it as an excuse for disruptive behavior.

Examples of Disruptive uses of Alignment:

* I'm attacking our party thief because I'm Lawful, I have to punish all law breakers!
* I must murder all these no-gooders in the town because I'm Good!
* I'm stealing the party's stuff because I'm Chaotic, therefore I'm selfish!
* I have to backstab my allies because I'm Evil!
* I have to commit a burn an orphanage to balance out my act of saving that other orphanage, I'm True Neutral!

As ridiculous as those sound, I have seen FOUR of those actually used as excuses in play (and heard about the Paladin that slaughtered people in the night because he detected their evil). I'm sure it's a great starting ground for some people, but I feel that motivations need to go deeper than alignment, especially that true neutral BS of having to do evil to counteract the good, that's just insane; maybe if you're playing an insane character and the party is fine with it.

Alignment in real life has more to do with who you're loyal to. Which is really a much better starting point. Then to decide your moralities. How cruel is to far even for an enemy? How do you show respect and compassion to the people you are aligned with? Ethics? Who do you respect as legitimate authority? It doesn't have to be a government, even anarchists can look up to someone and follow their orders.

That's why "alignment traps" AKA moral dilemmas in anything outside of D&D are so insane with alignment. Is it evil to slay the baby monsters that can't fight for themselves? Is it good to allow those same monsters to grow, attack and kill the people who raised them, and continue on a vicious rampage because that is their predestined nature?

--

On a side note, using Purity / Corruption works great as a replacement. It doesn't attempt to answer moral dilemmas, but it does give players and the GM a physical manifestation between "good" (Angels/Paladins) and "evil" (Demons/Devils/Undead) and allows all the spells to work (except Law/Chaos, but that stuff's negligible).


So, from the Grognards on here, can I get an answer to a hypothesis I posted far up-thread?

Quote:
I have a guess that the alignment system originally had an intention that is no longer core in many settings. And that is, It was a way to structure Divine Intervention in the fantasy world. An occurrence that seems to have been more common in the editions preceding 3.PF (excluding the Dark Sun setting of course).

Am I right? I've glanced over gaming products, from back in the day (on sale by consignment at nearby FLGS), a few times and that is the take-away I got from the alignment system.

Faerûn has perhaps the most activity of divine beings in the world of mortals but Oerth was a close second. Also Krynn was all about the divine presence, even (oddly) when the gods were absent-as-punishment.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I would start with "the opposite of chaos is order, not law. 'Law and order' is not a single monolith, they are two different (although closely related) things." Law is, perhaps, a tool for imposing order. Also, while chaos and order are polar opposites, I'm not sure there's a spectrum of shadings between the two, with a 'neutral' in the middle. Good <--> Evil, yes, there's clearly a spectrum there.

Jerry Pournelle wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the idea that the political "spectrum" cannot be fully described in one dimension (i.e., the line between "left" and "right"), but requires multiple dimensions. He gave a two-dimensional example, much like our two-dimensional alignment grid, but said that even two dimensions isn't enough. The same may well be true of alignment, although frankly I can't imagine what other dimensions there might be. But it seems pretty clear that the two dimensional alignment grid is a simplification of something.


{About Radovan}

Tectorman wrote:
Book 2: Master of Devils. He and Varian are in Tian Xia and get separated. Radovan is captured by Burning Cloud Devil, a one-armed Sorcerer-Monk who needs his unique combination of mortal and infernal energy to be his weapon against a Celestial Dragon. He learns things up to and including Abundant Step and the Quivering Palm. His devil heritage influencing the nature of his ki is a significant plot point so no, Radovan is not a Martial Artist, he's a ki-using Monk. Nor does his attitude change significantly while he's learning all this; he's still contemptuous of authority as he ever was.

Okay, I guess he must have some Trait or Feat (or maybe Tiefling Alternative Racial Trait) we don't yet know about: Disciple of Chaos. Benefit: You can gain levels and retain class abilities in classes that require a Lawful alignment even if you are not Lawful.

This perhaps accidentally leads into . . .

Tectorman wrote:

And here's an absolutely insane conspiracy theory.

The folks at Paizo are actually using the Pathfinder Campaign Setting as a scathing condemnation of alignment.

What do I mean by that?

It's like this:

Alignment is something tangible and measurable in this setting. {. . .}

The only logical outcome is that someone, somewhere is going to apply the scientific method to it. {. . .}

But what would that require? You'd have to have an inexhaustible supply of test subjects. You'd need to have or create a wide variety of test conditions. Which would require a high capacity for manipulating events on both a global scale and on a multi-millenial scale.

Take note because I've just described the aboleths.

They would be able to engineer events over the entire course of Golarion's history to map out morality itself. Use every paladin order on the planet as specimens in a rat's maze to determine all the different series of events that do and don't cause a paladin to fall.

{. . .}

But see, the Aboleths have run into a problem: Scientific experiments are often plagued by unexpected results, outliers that don't fit the norm expected from theory, even when to all visible signs the experiment has been performed flawlessly. In Mage, this is known as one of the manifestations of Paradox, what the Technocratic Union calls "Scourge". It is what happens when you try to do something too cool. Radovan must be one of those outliers. Now we just have to look for a Paladin that does stuff that by all accounts should be worthy of a fall, and that has caused numerous other Paladins to fall, yet does not fall . . . The aboleths have incurred Paradox. With Paradox, the multiverse doesn't implode, it instead temporarily pops a safety valve, often aimed at the perpetrators of excessive coolness. The Aboleths better watch out: The Unfallen may be coming after them . . . .

Silver Crusade

Quark Blast wrote:

So, from the Grognards on here, can I get an answer to a hypothesis I posted far up-thread?

Quote:
I have a guess that the alignment system originally had an intention that is no longer core in many settings. And that is, It was a way to structure Divine Intervention in the fantasy world. An occurrence that seems to have been more common in the editions preceding 3.PF (excluding the Dark Sun setting of course).

Am I right? I've glanced over gaming products, from back in the day (on sale by consignment at nearby FLGS), a few times and that is the take-away I got from the alignment system.

Faerûn has perhaps the most activity of divine beings in the world of mortals but Oerth was a close second. Also Krynn was all about the divine presence, even (oddly) when the gods were absent-as-punishment.

Gygax liked Moorcock who had Law and Chaos. So D&D had Law and Chaos. IIRC it was basically that simple. Good and evil came later


^I could be getting confused by having seen early TSR products out of order, but it seems to me that the D&D (pre-AD&D) alignment system went from Law-Chaos only (original original version) to Good-Evil & Law-Chaos (Basic D&D) back to Law-Chaos only (Expert D&D) and then yet again back to Good-Evil & Law-Chaos (AD&D and ?later Expert D&D?).

* * * * * * * *

Just had a thought building upon what I posted a little while ago: an Adventure Path in which the evil boss is a Paladin who has gone Evil, but somehow retained all powers and even gotten more, while starting an explosively-growing Razmiran-like cult of personality with imperial ambitions(*). To make things really spooky, somebody has been attacking Paladins seemingly randomly; often the victims are found gruesomely murdered, but sometimes survivors show up having obviously gone through some kind of horrific experience, but with sections of their memory missing or worse yet tampered with, along with their Paladin powers also having gone.

(*) And the real Razmiran is not amused, either.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

{About Radovan}

Tectorman wrote:
Book 2: Master of Devils. He and Varian are in Tian Xia and get separated. Radovan is captured by Burning Cloud Devil, a one-armed Sorcerer-Monk who needs his unique combination of mortal and infernal energy to be his weapon against a Celestial Dragon. He learns things up to and including Abundant Step and the Quivering Palm. His devil heritage influencing the nature of his ki is a significant plot point so no, Radovan is not a Martial Artist, he's a ki-using Monk. Nor does his attitude change significantly while he's learning all this; he's still contemptuous of authority as he ever was.
Okay, I guess he must have some Trait or Feat (or maybe Tiefling Alternative Racial Trait) we don't yet know about: Disciple of Chaos. Benefit: You can gain levels and retain class abilities in classes that require a Lawful alignment even if you are not Lawful.

Well, if we're going to chalk it up to something not yet published, then let's go whole-haul. Pathfinder Unleashed, where Monks don't have an alignment restriction. Not for tieflings or any other race. Playing a non-lawful ki-using character should be an option for more than just those who want to play a tiefling.

God willing, Pathfinder will finally make this change.


Aelryinth wrote:
IN PF humans are inherently neutral. They care for themselves and their families and perhaps their communities, and rapidly display disinterest outside of this.

This sounds very much like how I think of TN...What some call apathy is disinterest outside the range of their concerns; anything inside their range of concerns they can be VERY interested in, very quickly.

Aelryinth wrote:

They are basically squarely between False and True neutral, between not smart enough to make a choice and actively choosing a Neutral stance.

N societies tend to be rural, small and clannish...they don't really accomplish great things over time, they just exist from day to day and pass on to their children. Great advancements are made by venturing away from traditional lifestyles and changing what is natural to something civilized.

Countries that are Neutral (and that are actually countries) are usually firmly True Neutral with druidic ties...they've made an active choice to embrace Neutrality as a philosophy.

But this stuff seems like a set of quirky conceptions formed to deal with the legacy of D&D's oddities.

Oh well, c'est la vie. To each their own.


Tectorman wrote:
"Behold! Pathfinder 2nd Edition! Now we're going to try this without alignment!"

I have a soft spot in my gamer's heart for alignment*, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this happen. 4e and now 5e have proven that the game works just fine without alignment, if anyone ever had any doubt. ;)

*In concept, at least. The execution has traditionally been...lacking.

51 to 100 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Alignments; what's your interpretation? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.