| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need alignment for any of that, Kotath.
I think picking an alignment and sticking to it helps build consistent characters. I almost always stick to my alignment as hard as I can. If I'm lawful good, all kittens are saved from trees, all grandmas are helped across the street and all heathens are put to the sword. If I'm chaotic evil, be nice to me and push all your furniture in front of your door at night. I'm never that guy who coasts through the game, finds himself in a tight situation, remembers he's true neutral and throws everyone under the bus with the excuse that "I'm just playing my character" even though his character was a vanilla yes man five minutes ago. If you pick an alignment that matches up with your concept and then stay true to it, you'll have an awesome character.
it's easier to get rid of it and just say "You are an elite Crown Agent. Please role play accordingly." then have an alignment system where most alignments don't fit the game well.
So, what about you guys?
Also, just as a side note, your campaign sounds really cool. I hate it when players can give their characters dumb motivations like world domination. I wish I was in a game where everyone was part of a faction.
I ignore it as much as possible. Removing it from the rules whenever I can.
i look at it from an absolute perspective, like if i was god, would I consider him evil if i was basing it off of what the rule book says. and then i see if that detect evil/good/clowns(their own form of evil) comes back yes or no.
oh also, it's easier to just ignore the fact the game wants ethics and morals to overlap on some grid, but instead just judge them separately when required.
ask if you're more lawful or chaotic, and then as a separate question, ask how good or evil you are.
I ignore it as much as possible. Removing it from the rules whenever I can.
Pretty much. In regards to alignment affecting abilities (Smite, Blasphemy, etc.) I tend to take the subjective view of alignment as opposed to absolute. Pretty much if it's against something or someone who does "evil" in the eyes of the user, it's probably going to work.
^I have toyed with the idea of a spell "Anathematize"(*) that would make the target into a valid target for Smite. Holy Warriors and Inquisitors of more flexible/shifting ethics could use this to make Smite work (at least partially) when it wouldn't automatically work. Haven't figured out just how to balance it with respect to power level, though.
(*)Unfortunately, I think some existing spell may have taken this name, although I can't find it in the PRD.
EDIT: "Anathematize" also seems less needed now that Cavaliers/Samurai exist.
^I have toyed with the idea of a spell "Anathematize"(*) that would make the target into a valid target for Smite. Holy Warriors and Inquisitors of more flexible/shifting ethics could use this to make Smite work (at least partially) when it wouldn't automatically work. Haven't figured out just how to balance it with respect to power level, though.
(*)Unfortunately, I think some existing spell may have taken this name, although I can't find it in the PRD.
EDIT: "Anathematize" also seems less needed now that Cavaliers/Samurai exist.
it would be balanced because 1. you require 1 extra turn to set it up, 2. it uses a spell slot on top of a smite use.
it would be balanced because 1. you require 1 extra turn to set it up, 2. it uses a spell slot on top of a smite use.^I have toyed with the idea of a spell "Anathematize"(*) that would make the target into a valid target for Smite. Holy Warriors and Inquisitors of more flexible/shifting ethics could use this to make Smite work (at least partially) when it wouldn't automatically work. Haven't figured out just how to balance it with respect to power level, though.
(*)Unfortunately, I think some existing spell may have taken this name, although I can't find it in the PRD.
EDIT: "Anathematize" also seems less needed now that Cavaliers/Samurai exist.
I agree. No more broken than Instant Enemy IMO.
^Oh yeah, I forgot about Instant Enemy -- Ranger 3. So Anathematize as I proposed above might be okay as something like Holy Warrior(*) 3/Inquisitor 4/Warpriest 4.
(*)Paladin, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Oh yeah, I forgot about Instant Enemy -- Ranger 3. So Anathematize as I proposed above might be okay as something like Holy Warrior(*) 3/Inquisitor 4/Warpriest 4.
(*)Paladin, etc.
Yeah, mechanically it's no big deal.
Thematically, I'd never allow it because of how Paladins are supposed to work in-world. Allowing it really changes them profoundly on a thematic level. Now, if that's what you want, go for it, but I wouldn't ever do it.
Alignment is both descriptive and exclusionary, and at the same time. To solve this, I separate the two elements.
Let the descriptive parts (good, bad, law-abiding, free-spirited, anarchic, disorganized, etc.) exist on the same part of the character sheet as "taciturn, analytical, impulsive, contemplative". You know, the personality traits that are as precisely defined and of as much game importance as "blond, heavy-set, muscular, lanky", and so on.
But they have absolutely no game impact. Of any kind.
Instead, let the game-mechanical aspect exist on its own. Maybe call them something different to keep the terms from running together.
Instead of "good-neutral-evil", it's "blue-gray-red". Instead of "law-neutral-chaos", it's "shiny-dull-splotchy".
And then leave all the game-mechanical aspects in place. Barbarians used to have to be non-lawful, so they continue to have to be non-shiny. Paladins are either shiny-blue or splotchy-red, and may not multiclass with anything that can't be one of those two qualities. Monks have to be shiny. Devils are all shiny-red, demons are all splotchy-red, proteans are all splotchy-gray, etc.
Everything that previously needed to interact with the ruleset a certain way still does so and in the same way, so all the balance issues should remain the same.
The only change is that behavior and mechanical effect are independent of each other. So now, players can play the character they want to play, in this game that's supposed to be a Saturday afternoon (or whenever you play) diversion from the stresses of real life, without worrying about a frelling Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
^Oh yeah, I forgot about Instant Enemy -- Ranger 3. So Anathematize as I proposed above might be okay as something like Holy Warrior(*) 3/Inquisitor 4/Warpriest 4.
(*)Paladin, etc.
Yeah, mechanically it's no big deal.
Thematically, I'd never allow it because of how Paladins are supposed to work in-world. Allowing it really changes them profoundly on a thematic level. Now, if that's what you want, go for it, but I wouldn't ever do it.
With Rules as Written, you'd be partly right about it not fitting thematically. But if you have a system where subjective views can significantly distort the view characters/creatures/other entities have of each other's alignment, or where alignments other than Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil have their own Paladin-equivalents (better yet, have both modifications), then it does fit thematically.
As it is, even with Rules as Written, Anathematize would make thematic sense for Antipaladins (one of the most obvious examples being Antipaladins of Lamashtu and Rovagug (but various combinations of Demon Lords also fit with this) using Anathematize to be able to Smite each other), and it would also make sense for Inquisitors and Warpriests of certain other religions to be able to Anathematize each other (for instance, Asmodeus vs Irori, or Pharasma vs Urgathoa, or Abadar vs Gozreh, or Gorum vs anything, or even various factions of 1 faith against other factions -- the religion of Sarenrae is notorious for this and has a Dawnflower Dissident Prestige Class that grants abilities that are used for similar purposes, although differing in details of how they work).
I believe that alignment isn't a shackle or ball and chain. I believe that a characters alignment gives a general description of how a character acts and how that character views the world. Views are subject to change and so are alignments. That shows character growth and good role-playing.
Though I guess some pathfinder rules and abilities use alignment and I believe that all characters are subject to those rules and abilities. I don't believe its a constraint though, but rewards and consequences for keeping your particular alignment.
I also think that any creature can have any alignment and that alignment descriptions for them are for the majority of such creatures. Though devils, angels and other similar being are defined by their alignment, I believe devils may rise and angels may fall (though very rarely).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@OP:
I use the alignment system in my games, and I use it as written. The funny thing about the alignment system is, if you read it, and if you respect the simplicity of it, it works quite well with the game. It permits the players to roll and work with basically any character concept, to fill any role in almost any setting, and the alignment's interactions with the game's mechanics remains intact.
I have become convinced that alignment "problems" usually stem from people inventing problems. Either because they cannot be bothered to read the alignment rules, or want to discard the simplicity of it, in favor of something that takes into account their personal views on what is good and evil. Either will make the system appear clunky and useless.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always found this blog useful:
Removing alignment - part 1: Classes
Removing alignment - part 2: Magic
Removing alignment - part 3: Monsters
It deals with nearly every aspect of removing alignment in a fairly easy and quick way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use alignment, pretty much as-written in the rules.
Alignment is descriptive of character action/motivation, and is a useful shorthand for a character's morality/ethics. It's not a straightjacket or a constraint to roleplaying. They're guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules.
As a GM, I subjectively determine what a PC's alignment is, based on the overall actions of the character. This is almost always what the player has written on the sheet, but not always.
The inherent subjectivity of the alignment system is a feature, not a bug. I've been using alignment for 30 years, and have no intention of changing it.
I use alignment, pretty much as-written in the rules.
Alignment is descriptive of character action/motivation, and is a useful shorthand for a character's morality/ethics. It's not a straightjacket or a constraint to roleplaying. They're guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules.
As a GM, I subjectively determine what a PC's alignment is, based on the overall actions of the character. This is almost always what the player has written on the sheet, but not always.
The inherent subjectivity of the alignment system is a feature, not a bug. I've been using alignment for 30 years, and have no intention of changing it.
The problem comes in when there are several rules mechanics that go "Nah, it's no subjective, these things are unequivocally Evil/Good/Blooper because I said so".
Best to just terminate those with extreme prejudice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
problem comes in when there are several rules mechanics that go "Nah, it's no subjective, these things are unequivocally Evil/Good/Blooper because I said so".
Best to just terminate those with extreme prejudice.
I'm talking about PC alignment.
Aside from aligned outsiders [which are objectively aligned, by definition], what are you talking about?
|
|
With Rules as Written, you'd be partly right about it not fitting thematically. But if you have a system where subjective views can significantly distort the view characters/creatures/other entities have of each other's alignment, or where alignments other than Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil have their own Paladin-equivalents (better yet, have both modifications), then it does fit thematically.
Not entirely, a Paladin is supposed to be the righteous defender of their God's ways and people. Even in a subjective Alignment system, it seems like only people they see as Evil (and thus detect as Evil to their Detect Evil power) should be susceptible to Smite.
Still, it makes a lot more sense in a subjective alignment structure than the RAW one...I was mostly just noting it as inappropriate for the RAW one.
As it is, even with Rules as Written, Anathematize would make thematic sense for Antipaladins (one of the most obvious examples being Antipaladins of Lamashtu and Rovagug (but various combinations of Demon Lords also fit with this) using Anathematize to be able to Smite each other), and it would also make sense for Inquisitors and Warpriests of certain other religions to be able to Anathematize each other (for instance, Asmodeus vs Irori, or Pharasma vs Urgathoa, or Abadar vs Gozreh, or Gorum vs anything, or even various factions of 1 faith against other factions -- the religion of Sarenrae is notorious for this and has a Dawnflower Dissident Prestige Class that grants abilities that are used for similar purposes, although differing in details of how they work).
Adding something similar as a Warpriest spell makes a lot more sense thematically, and I'd be cool with it. Not that most Warpriests have a Smite mechanic, but it'd work for those who do. I can sorta see it for Antipaladins as well, but personally wouldn't go that route (seems more appropriate to just have them use stuff like Touch of Corruption on each other and save the Smiting for Good foes).
Inquisitors can already Smite (ie: Bane) whatever and whoever they like or feel is necessary, and thus don't really need such a spell.
And Dawnflower Dissidents do nothing of the kind. They add one to mind effecting Save DCs vs. people of their own and one opposing religion. That's a far cry from Smiting them.
Since I never actually answered the topic question:
I don't use it at all. In my experience, it's harmful to character development at worst, and irrelevant to it at best, which has led to me seeing it as an unnecessary complication.
Frankly, I think the closest real-world analogy to D&D alignment is the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator.
Both are shorthand/shortcut description painted in broad strokes that points out some useful information about someone's personality and general motivations.
Another thing about alignment is that Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) aren't necessarily equal opposites. It's easier to be evil than good; it's easier to be chaotic than lawful. Being good (or lawful) often requires making hard choices, that aren't always to your own advantage.
Alignment doesn't constrain or dictate actions; it informs a player how that character would likely act in a given circumstance. It's like (and is part of) the character's background information. If your character's backstory says that he hates bullies, that doesn't mean he has to beat up every bully he encounters. Likewise, just because you're Lawful doesn't mean that you can't work against a tyrant's unjust laws.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ask my players to take an alignment quiz I found while back. I hide the results from them. Because I feel that they are going to play their characters how they like no matter the alignment, doing this allows me to free them from the illusory constraint of saying "I'm this alignment, therefore I must act this way", while still tracking a starting alignment. If there were not mechanics in place that dealt with alignment (chaotic weapons and such) I'd get rid of it entirely.
If they do something hideously different from their secret alignment, I make a note of it. After three or so notes, I make a call on whether to adjust their secret alignment. Characters grow over time, after all.
Again, they are never explicitly told their alignment. Very rarely has it changed from their character's starting alignment. Most of the time, taking additional damage from some alignment-based source doesn't require me to divulge their alignment. It's just extra damage that I describe. That seems vague when I type it out, but often my descriptions are their to emphasis the result i.e. "You've been hit by axes before, and this axe has hit Jim Darkmagic over there... this was an especially bloody hit you just took. This axe doesn't like you, dude."
For disclosure, I only run APs due to life time constraints. I realize I could avoid alignment entirely if I made my own stuff. Having them do the alignment test is also a sneaky way for me to get them to start thinking about how they'll play their character before the first adventure.
I've also found that players will default to a Chaotic Greedy alignment no matter what they put on their sheet. All this gives me and the players the best of both worlds, until alignments are written out of the mechanics.
@OP:
I use the alignment system in my games, and I use it as written. The funny thing about the alignment system is, if you read it, and if you respect the simplicity of it, it works quite well with the game. It permits the players to roll and work with basically any character concept, to fill any role in almost any setting, and the alignment's interactions with the game's mechanics remains intact.
I have become convinced that alignment "problems" usually stem from people inventing problems. Either because they cannot be bothered to read the alignment rules, or want to discard the simplicity of it, in favor of something that takes into account their personal views on what is good and evil. Either will make the system appear clunky and useless.
-Nearyn
I've never seen alignment be a problem in actual play either, but denying people their experiences is a fast track to nowhere. I like alignment, but I recognize that it's pretty rough around the edges.
For example, I'm a very meticulous person when it comes to my hobbies [lawful], but very lackadaisical about anything I'm not very interested in [chaotic]. I'm honest ninety-nine percent of the time, sometimes to the point of bluntness [lawful], but I have no compunctions against lying through my teeth if I think it'll serve the greater good, and I think that honor is usually just a psychological weapon of those with superior tech and training [chaotic]. I'm a reliable friend and teammate [lawful], but I also don't like being told what to do [chaotic]. I have routines and habits that I like to stick to [lawful], but I have no use for traditions that get in the way of...well, anything [chaotic].
Am I lawful, neutral, or chaotic?
Now, I'm sure you'll peg me as one of those three, according to your own sensibilities. And about a quarter of PF gamers will agree with you; but two other quarters will peg me as either of the other two alignments, and the fourth quarter will say that I'm none because alignment doesn't reflect real people. You and I can make alignment work with a bit of reading between the lines, but they do have a point.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that I believe that alignment can be a real problem, even if it's never happened t me.
Frankly, I think the closest real-world analogy to D&D alignment is the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator.
I discovered the Myers-Briggs typology years ago, and my four-letter type did and does describe me with uncanny precision.
Just saying. :)
problem comes in when there are several rules mechanics that go "Nah, it's no subjective, these things are unequivocally Evil/Good/Blooper because I said so".
Best to just terminate those with extreme prejudice.
I'm talking about PC alignment.
Aside from aligned outsiders [which are objectively aligned, by definition], what are you talking about?
-Undead are always evil. Making undead is always evil. Because.
-Drinking blood for some benefit is always evil, no exceptions. You're a Dhampir who bites Evil McEvilton and gets some Temp HP to stave off imminent death? Evil.
-Casting Aligned spells changes your alignment. Because.
Just a few examples.
So, those of you that give alignment the shaft...how do you prevent your paladin from being effectively neutered by removing his smite?
I don't. My preferred approach is that powers that work only on particular alignments treat potential targets as the ultimate source of the power would perceive it. A paladin if Sarenrae would be able to smite things Sarenrae would call evil, and the additional damage on first attack would apply to evil (according to Sarenrae) dragons, undead, and outsider with the evil subtype. (I keep the alignment-based subtypes, as they are metaphysical in nature, much like positive and negative energy. The descriptors have no fixed effect on the behavior of the beings in question.)
Note that in some cases this makes smite more valuable and in others less.
For example, I'm a very meticulous person when it comes to my hobbies [lawful], but very lackadaisical about anything I'm not very interested in [chaotic]. I'm honest ninety-nine percent of the time, sometimes to the point of bluntness [lawful], but I have no compunctions against lying through my teeth if I think it'll serve the greater good, and I think that honor is usually just a psychological weapon of those with superior tech and training [chaotic]. I'm a reliable friend and teammate [lawful], but I also don't like being told what to do [chaotic]. I have routines and habits that I like to stick to [lawful], but I have no use for traditions that get in the way of...well, anything [chaotic].
Am I lawful, neutral, or chaotic?
Now, I'm sure you'll peg me as one of those three, according to your own sensibilities. And about a quarter of PF gamers will agree with you; but two other quarters will peg me as either of the other two alignments, and the fourth quarter will say that I'm none because alignment...
None of the above, you're not a wargaming minature, I presume you're some kind of real person.
Alignment is meant solely and I do mean solely to be used as a wargaming mechanic. It fails horribly when describing real life dimensional people, but it was never meant to be used outside of the context it was created for.
Not all people. Some fictional people are so one-dimensional as to be easily lasso'd into an alignment. Every main character of Always Sunny in Philadelphia except Charlie - horribly chaotic evil. Charlie - So phenomenally chaotic neutral as to make Captain Jack Sparrow stand back and look at him quizzically and say "Really? THAT's what you're gonna do with your time?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And often times real people are fictionalised that way for the same purposes.
WAT. I'll never be able to watch Jersey Shore the same way again!
And often times real people are fictionalised that way for the same purposes.WAT. I'll never be able to watch Jersey Shore the same way again!
Those aren't real people.
problem comes in when there are several rules mechanics that go "Nah, it's no subjective, these things are unequivocally Evil/Good/Blooper because I said so".
Best to just terminate those with extreme prejudice.
I'm talking about PC alignment.
Aside from aligned outsiders [which are objectively aligned, by definition], what are you talking about?
-Undead are always evil. Making undead is always evil. Because.
-Drinking blood for some benefit is always evil, no exceptions. You're a Dhampir who bites Evil McEvilton and gets some Temp HP to stave off imminent death? Evil.
-Casting Aligned spells changes your alignment. Because.
Just a few examples.
good is described as promoting life, while evil is the promoting of death. so yeah, all dead are evil, because most are mindless.
No, that is not how EITHER alignment is described.
Though I'll tuck that in my folder of "Dumb things to make the Paladin fall for".
"Sorry, John. You died, even if you were raised. As all dead people are evil, you now have to get an Atonement to get your abilities back.
No, that is not how EITHER alignment is described.
Though I'll tuck that in my folder of "Dumb things to make the Paladin fall for".
"Sorry, John. You died, even if you were raised. As all dead people are evil, you now have to get an Atonement to get your abilities back.
"Good - Good implies altruism, respect for life(implying evil does not respect life), and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil - Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others(undead would be hard pressed to find killing something a "bad" action). Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
sorry, i know it's a stretch but this is basically how i think it goes about the whole "undead on the physical plane" thing. just write it off as head cannon if it doesn't suit you.
also, dead, as in not animated or dead walking, and just plain dead, are not evil because, they're not undead. they're just dead. the prereq for being undead, is not actually to have been dead before, but to be a walking corpse/soul/whatever that shouldn't be here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
problem comes in when there are several rules mechanics that go "Nah, it's no subjective, these things are unequivocally Evil/Good/Blooper because I said so".
Best to just terminate those with extreme prejudice.
I'm talking about PC alignment.
Aside from aligned outsiders [which are objectively aligned, by definition], what are you talking about?
-Undead are always evil. Making undead is always evil. Because.
-Drinking blood for some benefit is always evil, no exceptions. You're a Dhampir who bites Evil McEvilton and gets some Temp HP to stave off imminent death? Evil.
-Casting Aligned spells changes your alignment. Because.
Just a few examples.
Defiling a corpse by using dark magic to make it walk and do your bidding? Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
Drinking the blood of a humanoid is cannibalism. Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
Summoning dark powers via unspeakable eldritch rituals and incantations? Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
|
Alignment used to be my favorite part of roleplay -- and all of D&D really -- the dynamic and the diversity, the overall complexity between PCs and NPCs.
But I solved it about 4 years ago and now it's just another part of the game:
represent a character's MORALITY.
represent a character's PERSONALITY.
I've said before that it's a shame that no designer in D&D's history, from Gygax to Cook to Bulmahn & Mona, has ever studied any ethics, thus leading to ridiculously ambiguous, conflicting, and sometimes ludicrous descriptions of Alignment. The idea that CG is about "freedom," for example, implying that LG doesn't care about freedom -- gimme a break. As if Chaotic or Lawful could really be moral or amoral.
The one theoretical weakness in my interpretation is that it takes away some from the Neutral Alignments -- not much, to be sure, but some. Of course, depending on the Player, not much was there to begin with.
Defiling a corpse by using dark magic to make it walk and do your bidding? Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
To you, certainly.
To others, perhaps not.
That's good. That's subjective.
I don't think it's evil. The energy you're using isn't evil in and of itself (casting Inflict Light Wounds isn't evil).
Defiling a corpse is often a cultural taboo, but by the alignment description, you're not doing anything that implies evil (disrespecting life or harming others). I don't think it's evil, just a little gross, at worst.
Making it walk and do your bidding is no more evil than making a construct (especially since people can and have made the point that enslaving a living creature and binding it to an object to make it live is FAR more evil than messing with a lifeless corpse).
Making it flatly evil to everyone, objectively by RAW makes it not subjective. Which is what you said you liked about it.
Drinking the blood of a humanoid is cannibalism. Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
As above, with a few extra addendums.
Plenty of real life cultures practice ritual cannbalism. Are you saying all of those are evil?
In-game, Lizardfolk are cannibals. They are, as a race, Neutral. So it's not even consistent within the game.
As per a designer, drinking blood just for fun is fine. It's only evil when you benefit from it (so doing it for no reason is less evil than doing it for a reason). Makes sense. /s
Summoning dark powers via unspeakable eldritch rituals and incantations? Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
First off, none of these spells use any more "unspeakable eldritch rituals" than non-aligned spells. Any more than [Good] spells involve kissing babies on the head and joyful hymns. They're cast just as any other spell.
Second, dark from whose perspective? That guy you just healed up with Infernal Healing?
Your buddy you just protected from a disagreement with a well-meaning but misguided Paladin by using Protection From Good?
Third, why is it being dark automatically denoting it as evil? Are things only good when they're fluffy and cute?
yeah, i'm pretty sure everything except the drinking blood for no reason thing, is in fact pretty evil by pathfinder's writing.
making a mockery of a living creature, is in fact disrespecting life.
drinking blood implies you hurt someone to gain that blood. whether they survive or not is on no consequence, you're using someone else's life energy to fuel your own undead form/half.
healing someone by tapping into the plane of hell is most certainly evil.
also, where exactly does it say they're cannibalistic? I did some soft searching to look into their lore more to make an informed decision on it, and can't find it.
yeah, i'm pretty sure everything except the drinking blood for no reason thing, is in fact pretty evil by pathfinder's writing.
making a mockery of a living creature, is in fact disrespecting life.
drinking blood implies you hurt someone to gain that blood. whether they survive or not is on no consequence, you're using someone else's life energy to fuel your own undead form/half.
And yet Vampiric Touch is just fine.
This is a major part of why objective alignment mechanics are stupid. They're inconsistent.
healing someone by tapping into the plane of hell is most certainly evil.
Why?
also, where exactly does it say they're cannibalistic? I did some soft searching to look into their lore more to make an informed decision on it, and can't find it.
It's in their Bestiary entry.
Lizardfolk are proud and powerful reptilian predators that make their communal homes in scattered villages deep within swamps and marshes. Uninterested in colonization of the dry lands and content with the simple weapons and rituals that have served them well for millennia, lizardfolk are viewed by many other races as backwater savages, but within their isolated communities lizardfolk are actually a vibrant people filled with tradition and an oral history stretching back to before humans walked upright.
Most lizardfolk stand 6 to 7 feet tall and weigh 200 to 250 pounds, their powerful muscles covered in scales of gray, green, or brown. Some breeds have short dorsal spikes or brightly colored frills, and all swim well by moving with flicks of their powerful 4-foot-long tails. While completely at home in the water, they breathe air and return to their clustered mound-dwellings to breed and sleep. As their reptilian blood makes them sluggish in the cold, most lizardfolk hunt and work during the day and retreat to their homes at night to curl up with other tribesmen in the shared warmth of large peat fires.
Though generally neutral, lizardfolks' standoffish demeanor, staunch rejection of civilization's “gifts,” and legendary ferocity in battle cause them to be viewed negatively by most humanoids. These traits stem from good reasons, however, as their own slow rate of reproduction is no match for warm-blooded humanoids, and those tribes who don't defend their wetland territories to the last breath quickly find themselves overwhelmed by the mammalian hordes. As for their tendency to consume the bodies of dead friends and enemies alike, the practical lizardfolk are quick to point out that life is hard in the swamp, and nothing should go to waste.
The lizardfolk presented here dwell in a swampy environment. Lizardfolk tribes can exist in other environments as well, but they lose their swim speed and instead gain a climb speed of 15 feet.
Bolded for convenience.
@Rynjin: I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think I'd enjoy playing in your games, and I don't think you'd enjoy playing in mine.
Doesn't mean either are wrong, but we have very different opinions on what alignment is, what it represents, and how it's used in the game. I like it, I think its useful, and I think it adds to the fun. You don't.
I think I've finally determined that alignment in D&D/PFRPG is roughly the equivalent of the abortion issue in national politics. No one is really going to change others' opinions on the topic.
healing someone by tapping into the plane of hell is most certainly evil.Why?
This one, I think, I can answer. Hell itself is literally powered by the souls of the damned. Benefiting from it is literally causing yourself to be healed by the suffering and torment of others.
|
|
There is also precedent in published adventures for undead to not be evil -- and the creation of undead.
"Practical Magic" by Jason Nelson in Dungeon 109 (I think) is an FR adventure in Cormyr where a city NPC animates dead for use as street sweepers, lantern lighters, minor carpenters, chimney sweepers and other not-so-fun or high-paying jobs. You know, it's practical magic. The NPC is a good guy, all in all -- Alignment Neutral I believe -- and his zombies and skeletons provide a valuable service to Cormyr -- a famously LG Kingdom.
Still, your opinions may vary -- that's cool -- and in your games all animating of dead, and undead creatures, can be evil. The game is big enough for everyone.
@Rynjin: I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think I'd enjoy playing in your games, and I don't think you'd enjoy playing in mine.
Doesn't mean either are wrong, but we have very different opinions on what alignment is, what it represents, and how it's used in the game. I like it, I think its useful, and I think it adds to the fun. You don't.
I think I've finally determined that alignment in D&D/PFRPG is roughly the equivalent of the abortion issue in national politics. No one is really going to change others' opinions on the topic.
Maybe. It just seems kind of at odds with what you said. I like alignment as a subjective descriptor of morality myself, which is what you said as well.
But then you say you like the game dictating objective morals at you in the next breath. Just seems odd.
This one, I think, I can answer. Hell itself is literally powered by the souls of the damned. Benefiting from it is literally causing yourself to be healed by the suffering and torment of others.
healing someone by tapping into the plane of hell is most certainly evil.Why?
You're using other's suffering (which you can't stop) in order to lessen another's suffering. I call that a wash, morality wise.
Now, if you had to actively harm someone else to use it, sure. But as-is? Nah.
At the risk of Godwining this thread, the Nazis performed horrific, inexcusable experiments on living subjects.
However, the knowledge gained from that has saved countless lives over the years. Are all doctors evil because they're pulling their "healing power" from the "suffering and torment of others"?
This one, I think, I can answer. Hell itself is literally powered by the souls of the damned. Benefiting from it is literally causing yourself to be healed by the suffering and torment of others.
healing someone by tapping into the plane of hell is most certainly evil.Why?0
You're using other's suffering (which you can't stop) in order to lessen another's suffering. I call that a wash, morality wise.Now, if you had to actively harm someone else to use it, sure. But as-is? Nah.
At the risk of Godwining this thread, the Nazis performed horrific, inexcusable experiments on living subjects.
However, the knowledge gained from that has saved countless lives over the years. Are all doctors evil because they're pulling their "healing power" from the "suffering and torment of others"?
Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed. You're directly contributing to the necessity for more souls to be collected by using such power.
Furthermore, morality isn't math. You don't throw down numbers and if it balances out you're good. It doesn't matter how many people an evil person helps, if they're evil, they're evil.
No, all doctors aren't evil, but those Nazis sure are, no matter if their knowledge saves billions, even trillions of lives in the future.
For example, imagine there were a police officer. This police officer saves hundreds of lives throughout the course of his career, puts many badguys, legitimate badguys not just petty lawbreakers, but murderers and the like, in jail. He volunteers, donates to charity, and does tons of great stuff.
Imagine that guy touches one kid inappropriately one time.
The rest of that stuff doesn't matter in light of that one action. All the good in the world doesn't erase evil.