"They act big, wave their arms and make loud noises."
Only when being smart. Never seen a human try to scare something away without deliberate thought or being cornered.
A good test is to surprise someone. A predator turns to fend off what surprised them only running away once it is known to be a larger threat, prey run before even looking.
Do humans turn and wave their arms, or do they run away? Now humans usually get their forebrains catching up mighty quick, so it doesn't take long for them to realize it isn't something to worry about (especially when hearing laughter), but their first reaction is certainly not to attack nor turn on what/who surprised them.
I might.Awwwwww.
I can't help it, it's in my nature. Or it's not, or everything tastes like chicken anyway.
I haven't quite figured it out yet.
Lot of words though, lots of words.
dude... it's one thing to know you're smarter than other people and another to assume you're smarter than everyone you talk to. being smart isn't everything and certainly doesn't make you better than other people. and pointing out how smart you think you are almost never helps. so many moderately intelligent people think they're smarter than everyone else, but it's usually a sign that they're not as smart as they think they are when they have to point out how smart they are unsolicited.This is part of my point. Being smarter doesn't make one better in general and smarts don't equal knowledge. My point was that knowing that doesn't make it obvious or easy to sound less like a smarty pants, especially when one has trouble with the whole communication thing to begin with.
word. my point was that pointing out your trouble with effective communication would have been better than "I see more into things than most."
...but their first reaction is certainly not to attack nor turn on what/who surprised them.Counter example.
I'll back up that example with anecdote. Cus I've done the same thing when startled. Was totally innocent too, they just walked around the corner in the dark on me, and crack, socked them right in the face. Whoops. Totally my bad, but I got startled and body just lashed out.
This is why I don't go to haunted houses. It's all good until I get spooked for real, then blam.
This is why I don't go to haunted houses. It's all good until I get spooked for real, then blam.
"BOO!"
"FALCON PAWNCH!!"
"They act big, wave their arms and make loud noises."
Only when being smart. Never seen a human try to scare something away without deliberate thought or being cornered.
A good test is to surprise someone. A predator turns to fend off what surprised them only running away once it is known to be a larger threat, prey run before even looking.
Do humans turn and wave their arms, or do they run away? Now humans usually get their forebrains catching up mighty quick, so it doesn't take long for them to realize it isn't something to worry about (especially when hearing laughter), but their first reaction is certainly not to attack nor turn on what/who surprised them.
Actually, that's not true. When confronted with the unknown most animals will back off until they know what's going on. Very few animals will stand their ground and fight immediately. As an Alaskan, who has encountered this exact problem from time to time, I can tell you that bears are one of the few animals that immediately attack when frightened. Why? Because a grizzly bear has nothing to fear in its natural environment.
However, most other predators have senses so highly developed that it's difficult to actually get the drop on them. The predator cats, for example, will usually duck into cover, examine quickly, and reengage if necessary. You can still see this reaction in house cats, but it's also been witnessed in cats in the wild and the zoo. Sneak up on a cat, many will jump or take off, and then sneak back up on you.
An unknown is dangerous, and dangerous means death in the wild.
This is why I don't go to haunted houses. It's all good until I get spooked for real, then blam."BOO!"
"FALCON PAWNCH!!"
Pretty much. There was a false wall and guy jumped out and touched me. Got punched. It was ok, they said it happened a lot more than they'd like, but I decided to leave anyway, after a sincere apology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much. There was a false wall and guy jumped out and touched me. Got punched. It was ok, they said it happened a lot more than they'd like, but I decided to leave anyway, after a sincere apology.This is why I don't go to haunted houses. It's all good until I get spooked for real, then blam."BOO!"
"FALCON PAWNCH!!"
You know... I once played an horror game for Wii. It had two measurements of fear/spookiness.
The "fearmeater" measure how often you get scared... To me it was pretty low. 15~20%, or something... But it also had a "sissymeter", which told you how intensely you moved around when you got spooked. Mine was over 90%!!!
You know what that means?
Some day... I'll german supplex someone who spooks me. XD
Actually, that's not true. When confronted with the unknown most animals will back off until they know what's going on. Very few animals will stand their ground and fight immediately. As an Alaskan, who has encountered this exact problem from time to time, I can tell you that bears are one of the few animals that immediately attack when frightened. Why? Because a grizzly bear has nothing to fear in its natural environment.
However, most other predators have senses so highly developed that it's difficult to actually get the drop on them. The predator cats, for example, will usually duck into cover, examine quickly, and reengage if necessary. You can still see this reaction in house cats, but it's also been witnessed in cats in the wild and the zoo. Sneak up on a cat, many will jump or take off, and then sneak back up on you.
An unknown is dangerous, and dangerous means death in the wild.
Lions are remarkably easy to scare off (unless they're starving, defending their offspring or something like that, but that goes for pretty much every animal ever!).
Most animal attacks (on humans) in Africa are by elephants, although most deaths are by hippos (I assume hippos are more "efficient" because humans have a much easier time running and hiding on land than in water).
Hippos are effing mean as hell, and give 0...cares. You get near them in or out of the water, expect hell.
Hippos are effing mean as hell, and give 0...cares. You get near them in or out of the water, expect hell.
The same could be said about the African ox... And angry elephants. And baboons...
But those animals still don't kill as many people as hippos. Terrain advantage is huge!
>Lions are remarkably easy to scare off (unless they're starving, defending their offspring or something like that, but that goes for pretty much every animal ever!).
Exactly. Most animals don't want to deal with a weird human thing that isn't their usual choice of food and which they aren't used to hunting. I imagine it's more or less the same for why animals back up if you take a stick into your hands-they see a weird thing do something weird, and naturally back up a bit.
This thread has been remarkably educational lately. XD
According to my sources, scientists have invented trees
What are your thoughts on that?
According to my sources, scientists have invented trees
What are your thoughts on that?
This could be nothing short of miraculous if it works. :o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I learned someone else has similar tastes in CoC as me, so yeah educational :p
This could be nothing short of miraculous if it works. :oAccording to my sources, scientists have invented trees
What are your thoughts on that?
It won't go anywhere for decades. Might be good for terraforming, but I plan on breaking the energy industry with something far superior, and much cheaper. Fuel of any sort will be history if I have any say in the matter. It'll be a war to achieve it though. Companies make billions every year on fuels and oil products, if they don't enter the market ready to fight a war against the best business warriors, they won't make it. I plan on making it, if I must tear their refineries apart with my own hands.
It won't go anywhere for decades. Might be good for terraforming, but I plan on breaking the energy industry with something far superior, and much cheaper. Fuel of any sort will be history if I have any say in the matter. It'll be a war to achieve it though. Companies make billions every year on fuels and oil products, if they don't enter the market ready to fight a war against the best business warriors, they won't make it. I plan on making it, if I must tear their refineries apart with my own hands.This could be nothing short of miraculous if it works. :oAccording to my sources, scientists have invented trees
What are your thoughts on that?
...is it related to magnets?
word. my point was that pointing out your trouble with effective communication would have been better than "I see more into things than most."dude... it's one thing to know you're smarter than other people and another to assume you're smarter than everyone you talk to. being smart isn't everything and certainly doesn't make you better than other people. and pointing out how smart you think you are almost never helps. so many moderately intelligent people think they're smarter than everyone else, but it's usually a sign that they're not as smart as they think they are when they have to point out how smart they are unsolicited.This is part of my point. Being smarter doesn't make one better in general and smarts don't equal knowledge. My point was that knowing that doesn't make it obvious or easy to sound less like a smarty pants, especially when one has trouble with the whole communication thing to begin with.
I'll try to keep that in mind, thanks.
...is it related to magnets?It won't go anywhere for decades. Might be good for terraforming, but I plan on breaking the energy industry with something far superior, and much cheaper. Fuel of any sort will be history if I have any say in the matter. It'll be a war to achieve it though. Companies make billions every year on fuels and oil products, if they don't enter the market ready to fight a war against the best business warriors, they won't make it. I plan on making it, if I must tear their refineries apart with my own hands.This could be nothing short of miraculous if it works. :oAccording to my sources, scientists have invented trees
What are your thoughts on that?
Yes, though I know of a version running on gravity as well, though only one source on that so far and I didn't make that. My magnet version I had built a proof of concept, and it worked, until it tore itself apart. Used cardboard and old packing tape are poor building materials. I'm saving up to build something more sturdy, and I tried contacting nasa since they are having power issues and actively looking for alternatives, but I haven't heard anything in return yet.
Yes, though I know of a version running on gravity as well, though only one source on that so far and I didn't make that. My magnet version I had built a proof of concept, and it worked, until it tore itself apart. Used cardboard and old packing tape are poor building materials. I'm saving up to build something more sturdy, and I tried contacting nasa since they are having power issues and actively looking for alternatives, but I haven't heard anything in return yet....is it related to magnets?It won't go anywhere for decades. Might be good for terraforming, but I plan on breaking the energy industry with something far superior, and much cheaper. Fuel of any sort will be history if I have any say in the matter. It'll be a war to achieve it though. Companies make billions every year on fuels and oil products, if they don't enter the market ready to fight a war against the best business warriors, they won't make it. I plan on making it, if I must tear their refineries apart with my own hands.This could be nothing short of miraculous if it works. :oAccording to my sources, scientists have invented trees
What are your thoughts on that?
On a slightly more serious note, mind sharing the general principle?
Force is not equal to energy. This can be seen when you apply a small force to a magnet to push it closer to another then they attract with a much stronger force. Question then is, if they moved by expenditure of energy, where did that energy come from? Answer is they applied a force that acted and any energy movement or conversion is a byproduct of that force.
Basically, if you have two rings, you can arrange the magnets in a way that the magnets in one ring push on those in the other due to arrangement. The angle of the fields as to be just right and overlap sufficiently close, but it drives itself from the magnetic push. Getting electricity from a self spinning wheel is just a matter of placing coils close enough to the spinning wheel that the magnetic fields pass through the coils.
*Pulls out a standard issue 10 ft wooden pole* *Pokes Ashiel*
Hey.
*Poke*
Ashiel.
*Poke*
Hey Ashiel.
*Poke*
What do you think of the ruling which, apparently, will be published in the Horror Adventures that casting an alligned spell is always an alligned act?
*Hides behind a wall and prepares popcorn*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's hilarious that Paizo is still throwing this particular tantrum years later without even addressing the core flaw that alignment doesn't even mean what they think it means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
guess i'll just remember to cast a few good spells to offset the evil ones then... hooray for pointless bookkeeping!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I love (think is utterly stupid) about this idea of Paizo's is that someone like an Evil Wizard infiltrating a Good Group who casts spells with Good descriptor (Protection from Evil, Celestial Healing etc) to maintain that cover will soon "rise" (as opposed to fall) from Evil into Neutrality, and then Good. All because he hasn't been performing Evil acts so as to maintain his cover other than infiltrating for nefarious purposes.
Best part? There is no counter argument to this. Intention or future plans plays no part, only actions matter. You cast Good/Evil spells, you become Good/Evil. Period.
Also, I recall James Jacobs stating that it doesn't happen over a few spells, but if you cast like a dozen or so? Alignment shift.
Bloody nonsense that they created this whole redemption system for Wrath of the Righteous when the simplest method of "redeeming" someone is handing them a wand of [insert good spell] and making them activate a bunch of times.
[Edit] Wow, was I wrong. I decided to look back on James' post and I was way off. See post here.
As a rough guideline, how many evil spells should be cast to shift someone’s alignment towards evil (from good to neutral or neutral to evil)?
I understand that it may vary from situation to situation, but I don't want to be arbitrary and shift ones alignment for casting 1-2 evil spells, or counting till the caster reaches hundred or more casts.
I wouldn't nail it down, since intent maters as much as anything. If the spellcastter was obviously freaked out and apologetic and uncomfortable about casting an evil spell, it might take four or so before I'd shift the character's alignment closer to evil. If the spellcaster was blasé about it or eager and amused by it, the shift might happen with a single casting. The actions of the player casting the spell would be as much a decider as the spell itself.
Regardless, it wouldn't take many castings.
So according to James Jacobs' Guide to Aligned Spellcasting, it can take as few as 1 spell, or as many as 4 to cause an alignment shift. Let's hope he didn't get to decide the rules on this topic for Horror Adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Pulls out a standard issue 10 ft wooden pole* *Pokes Ashiel*
Hey.
*Poke*
Ashiel.
*Poke*
Hey Ashiel.
*Poke*
What do you think of the ruling which, apparently, will be published in the Horror Adventures that casting an alligned spell is always an alligned act?
*Hides behind a wall and prepares popcorn*
Well...I think it's incredibly stupid, but it's what I've come to expect these days (I've lost all belief in writer self respect or respect for the material being produced, and as the quantity of quality material has slowed to a crawl, so have my purchases, so it's saving me lots of money at least).
If I happen to find myself in a game where this "rule" is enforced, it's nothing but good for me. It means my heroic characters will be very difficult to harm by the evil creatures they're fighting. As it turns out, things like evil outsiders tend to have a very difficult time harming Neutral Evil characters because spells like unholy blight just flake off, and things like dictum and chaos hammer aren't particularly effective either.
It also means atonement spells aren't really needed anymore except for restoring class abilities. If being blase about casting the spell starts shifting alignment rapidly, a single wand of protection from whatever has anywhere from 12.5 to 50 alignment shifts built into it.
It does beg the question about afterlife though. If afterlife is determined by your alignment, you might need to make sure you use the wand a bit before you die so you can go to heaven. If it's determined by actions, then you'll end up with lots of "evil" people in heaven where they belong, since they were out doing heroically good, selfless, beautiful things for the benefits of others while also using things like infernal healing which aren't moral issues but tag you anyway.
Of course, if we're already Evil-aligned, nothing would hurt with us becoming a lich, or mummy, ghoul, or some other undead creature and just saying to hell (no pun intended) with the afterlife entirely. It's not like we can't plane shift to a different plane for our afterlife when we want to (high level heroes can vacation in the celestial planes, or create their own heavens).
If anything, this is probably a huge buff to heroic characters that aren't Paladins. It also means infiltrating the evil organizations to undo them is infinitely easier 'cause you don't have to bother with spells to mask or conceal your alignment (hell, those spells don't even need to exist anymore). Everyone is evil, except those who aren't. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This also solves the thing where some people are convinced you have to do something atrociously evil to become a lich. If casting evil spells shifts your alignment harder and faster than killing, dumping a wand of summon devil badger oughta do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This also solves the thing where some people are convinced you have to do something atrociously evil to become a lich. If casting evil spells shifts your alignment harder and faster than killing, dumping a wand of summon devil badger oughta do it.
Haha, yeah. Though humorously the act of unspeakable evil thing is wholly absent in the Pathfinder lich (something I can agree with, yay). In Pathfinder, there's nothing in RAW that requires you to perform evil acts to become a lich. :P
Of course, I feel like mummies are underappreciated as a route for undeath. Not to mention their creation is nothing but beautiful holiness in Pathfinder. They're wrapped in bless linens, consecrated, anointed with holy oils such, filled with flowers, etc. These guys are walking potpourri boxes. :P
I can't say for sure, but the impression I got from James a while ago, was that alignment is a real and tangible energy of sorts, therefore while intent can affect it, intent/personality isn't the only aspect to worry about.
In that sense of alignment having an actual energy beyond the self, it then makes sense that casting certain spells would change the balance of those energies within a person. It also suddenly makes sense that alignment doesn't accurately reflect motives, inclinations, or personality (though alignment might influence those things over the long term).
Doesn't solve any of those problems with it, but it does make a sort of sense.
I don't like it personally.
In fact, I prefer motivation based alignment and/or selfish vs generous.
Also, I generally prefer to think of lawful as disciplined and obligated, like an OCD person or someone who is always very specific with plans, organization, and systems, with chaotic being someone that can't stick to a plan, never heard of organization, prefers ad-hoc arrangements, etc.
Edit: this view of lawful not only solves lawful stupid, but makes lawful alignment suddenly make sense for paladins and monks, as those classes are all about high dedication, especially monk s that basically requires the dedication do everything in an exacting and precise way, all day, every day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say for sure, but the impression I got from James a while ago, was that alignment is a real and tangible energy of sorts, therefore while intent can affect it, intent/personality isn't the only aspect to worry about.
It'd be great if they actually wrote that into the rules, but they never do because it 'limits GMs ability to make their own decisions'.
Edit:
Also, I generally prefer to think of lawful as disciplined and obligated, like an OCD person or someone who is always very specific with plans, organization, and systems, with chaotic being someone that can't stick to a plan, never heard of organization, prefers ad-hoc arrangements, etc.
Edit: this view of lawful not only solves lawful stupid, but makes lawful alignment suddenly make sense for paladins and monks, as those classes are all about high dedication, especially monk s that basically requires the dedication do everything in an exacting and precise way, all day, every day.
And here is where my eye starts to twitch again...
Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.
Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force.
*Pulls out a standard issue 10 ft wooden pole* *Pokes Ashiel*
Hey.
*Poke*
Ashiel.
*Poke*
Hey Ashiel.
*Poke*
What do you think of the ruling which, apparently, will be published in the Horror Adventures that casting an alligned spell is always an alligned act?
*Hides behind a wall and prepares popcorn*
I think Ultimate Intrigue printed that rule first. Though the idea of evil spells=evil being a cosmic thing is a Ravenloft thing. Cast or learn an evil spell, Power Check to find out if you started becoming the next big bad. Same with learning any necromancy or enchanment spell. Making undead does another. Stealing is one.
Honestly if all the stuff that had checks was viable, there would be more dark lords than criminals. Oh and curses are a powers check. Which means I can't play a Harbinger who uses dark powers for possibly not so dark reasons because using those dark forces means you are eeeeeevil in super short time. Which made me comment to my amusement I'll be the nicest darklord ever because my becoming a Dark Lord is entirely from things I do, rather than things I do to people.
i'm not kidding though. this is almost a hit to my PFS necromancer, but now i'll just be investing in a wand of protection from evil to offset my desecrate and animate dead castings. not that she does that yet, but you know...
on a similar note, why are people so against shades of gray?
@TriOmegaZero
Interesting article, but the part you quoted isn't even close to what I meant. I also noticed the article didn't touch the concept of dedication or obligation. So let me expand on that a bit.
Let us take two people learning a violin. Bob is lawful, Red is chaotic.
Bob learns by having a set practice period every day. He runs scales, studies musical theory, and practices to refine his technique to perfection.
Red plays whenever he feels like it, he plays by ear trying to make the violin sound like he wants, he listens to other musicians and tries playing to match the sound. He never does scales, his technique is sloppy and unrefined. He possibly never learns to read sheet music.
Both Bob and Red end up becoming great players, Bob is likely to gravitate towards concert music, while Red is likely to gravitate towards fiddling. But they both learn how to play, just in very different ways.
Also, their different methodologies are likely to have different advantages and disadvantages. Bob is likely able to pick up the sheet music for an unknown song and play it perfectly, while Red is likely able to play any song he has ever heard and play it by ear.
Bob is dedicated to the music and he persues it in a methodical manner. Because Bob is dedicated to it, he feels obligated to maintain his routine of practice. Red loves music, but he isn't dedicated, he just plays when he feels like it. Because he isn't dedicated, he feels no obligation towards it, he returns to playing simply because he often feels like playing.
This can then be applied to class requirements.
The paladin is dedicated to his beliefs and values and therefore feels obligated to uphold them at all times, no matter how much of a chore it becomes, no matter the cost to himself. This dedication and obligation is why he must be lawful. The stereotypical paladin believes in goodness and many of the paladin's powers are about good, hence the good requirement (though I feel stereotypes are weak thing to base mechanics on, the entire concept of classes is about stereotypes.) The fact that those values are written out for you is sad, though I was pretty sure the book mentioned the paladin's code on one of those occasions where it encouraged the gm to adjust and adapt the classes to the character concept. (It has been a while though, so I'd need to go back and read again.)
The monk requires dedication. Her abilities can only be achieved by a strict training regimen that is followed consistently.
The barbarian relies on a rage, but dedication requires discipline, a level of discipline that denies the possibility of rage, since rage is all about the lack of control and discipline.
The bard is chaotic as a victim of stereotype. She represents the unattached wanderer who goes wherever the road takes her. An unattached wanderer is by definition, not dedicated to anything and has no obligations to tie her down. (I think the bard abilities can pretty well suit a wide range of characters outside the wandering minstrel concept. I once made a noble that was the bard class and used oratory instead of singing. She yelled things like "Come on you apes! You want to live forever?!" Nothing wandring or minstrel like about her.)
I can't speak to the knight as I'm not familiar with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My grandfather was Red. Self taught accordion player, always played by ear and never learned to read sheet music. In fact, due to his severe dyslexia, he was all but incapable of reading it. But he played because he loved music. Even as his mind deteriorated due to Alzheimer's and Dementia, he continued playing. He didn't know how he knew to play, but he played anyway.
@TriOmegaZero
Interesting article, but the part you quoted isn't even close to what I meant. I also noticed the article didn't touch the concept of dedication or obligation. So let me expand on that a bit.
Let us take two people learning a violin. Bob is lawful, Red is chaotic.
Bob learns by having a set practice period every day. He runs scales, studies musical theory, and practices to refine his technique to perfection.
Red plays whenever he feels like it, he plays by ear trying to make the violin sound like he wants, he listens to other musicians and tries playing to match the sound. He never does scales, his technique is sloppy and unrefined. He possibly never learns to read sheet music.
Both Bob and Red end up becoming great players, Bob is likely to gravitate towards concert music, while Red is likely to gravitate towards fiddling. But they both learn how to play, just in very different ways.
Also, their different methodologies are likely to have different advantages and disadvantages. Bob is likely able to pick up the sheet music for an unknown song and play it perfectly, while Red is likely able to play any song he has ever heard and play it by ear.
Bob is dedicated to the music and he persues it in a methodical manner. Because Bob is dedicated to it, he feels obligated to maintain his routine of practice. Red loves music, but he isn't dedicated, he just plays when he feels like it. Because he isn't dedicated, he feels no obligation towards it, he returns to playing simply because he often feels like playing.
This can then be applied to class requirements.
The paladin is dedicated to his beliefs and values and therefore feels obligated to uphold them at all times, no matter how much of a chore it becomes, no matter the cost to himself. This dedication and obligation is why he must be lawful. The stereotypical paladin believes in goodness and many of the paladin's powers are about good, hence the good requirement (though I feel stereotypes are weak thing to base mechanics...
And then it turns out that Red is dedicated to learning how to play the piano, while Bob only does so sporadically and plays it by the ear, because actual human people are weird and inconsistent, and can act differently in relation to different things.
>The monk requires dedication.
It does? It seems like just "a martial artist" to me. Why couldn't a monk be a self-taught brawler who liked to get into bar fights a whole lot and became the best at unarmed fighting by fighting unarmed in bar fights for the last 10 years? Whoops, sorry, no can do-must be lawful. Guess this character concept should just die in a fire.
>The barbarian relies on a rage, but dedication requires discipline, a level of discipline that denies the possibility of rage, since rage is all about the lack of control and discipline.
Notice how it's not your usual rage(because your usual Ranger whose spouse was just killed by the BBEG is stuck without those morality bonuses), but rather some sort of magical rage thingy? Which you need a lot of training to access? Dare I even say a lot of dedication to become better at it?
Barbarians aren't enraged all the time. Their rage is a state of heightened battle provess that they can achieve for a limited number of turns per day. How they act the rest of the time isn't in any way affected by it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One wouldn't be wrong described a barbarian's rage as a "focused rage", since they can actually convert their rage into a tangible, beneficial, effect. That sounds like it takes a lot of discipline, because nobody else in the game can get pissed and turn it into strength.
Barbarian is actually the best core class for building a Samurai out of, IMHO. Ranger makes a good second though.
EDIT: In fact, speaking of discipline, the closest analogue I can think of to a Barbarian's rage is Mace Windu's Form VII lightsaber style, Vaapad. Very few were able to master fighting in this form because of the tendency to give into your rage while fighting in it (because it was as much a psychological thing as a physical thing). Given the control over their anger that barbarians have (they can rage while becoming MORE aware of their surroundings, not less, and they have no issues dealing with their foes non-lethally while in this apparent rage-high), chalking it up to anything undisciplined just feels dishonest.
Another reason I don't enforce alignment restrictions.
"And then it turns out that Red is dedicated to learning how to play the piano, while Bob only does so sporadically and plays it by the ear, because actual human people are weird and inconsistent, and can act differently in relation to different things."
In theory, but most people aren't like that. Most people come at everything they do in a similar fashion.
I.E. My mother is lawful, as everything she does, she does methodically, always planning, analyzing, and organizing. Does she occasionally do things on a whim, certainly, but even as she does she is adapting her plans and accepts them whim when she knows that everything is in place and can deal with it. She never just "goes with the flow," rather she is always trying to direct it. She insists on towels being folded just right, having an inventory of our movie collection which must be organized to her satisfaction, and jury-rigging is not an acceptable solution to any problem.
However, my father is chaotic. He never plans, he "goes with the flow" in all he does. He never organizes anything, and jury-rigging is not only fine but occasionally the superior solution. Does he make and keep appointments, certainly, but only when others require them.
Most people are like that, dealing with everything they face in a similar fashion. It is because it relates to how people think. People like my mother are always analyzing everything, and most of the time they do something on a whim, it is because they had all their ducks in a row, or possibly they saw an opportunity and took a risk (after all being organized isn't always a compulsion, therefore, sufficient reward will get an out of norm response).
">The monk requires dedication.
It does? It seems like just "a martial artist" to me."
If all the monk class did was unarmed then certainly, but you forget all the supernatural chi based things they do, and those would not be gained by a guy who just got a lot of practice at brawling. This concept is why I don't like classes, bevause classed are built around specific concepts, and if your concept doesn't fit an existing class, oh well you're [fudgcicles]. It isn't the alignmemt restriction that is the problem with this example, it is the class restriction, implied rather than explicit, the restriction is still there. The monk class isn't about anybody who is awesome at unarmed combat, it is about those like kung-fu monks. The bar brawler is outside the conceptual space the monk class is designed to cover, you just weren't given a better option is all.
"Notice how it's not your usual rage"
Of course not, but the view of the barbarian's rage has shifted. It wasn't about controlled rage, it was about those who would "fly off the handle" and "blindly" attack without thought, it was the classic character who thought charging into the fray was the the way to fight, getting there and unleashing their anger without restraint.
Windu's Vaapad style is about passion not anger, and also is about controlled and focused passion. It is related but not the same as what the barbarian class was about. Why do you think barbarians were illiterate, tribal, and uncivilized? Because civilized implies restraint, and tribal people were seen as being almost animals amd lacking in restraint. Restraint is vital to control. Unleashing yourself without restraint therefore works against any concept of control.
"the tendency to give into your rage while fighting in it"
And what do you think happens when they give in to their rage? They become powerhouses, but also get tunnelvision and forget any kind of plan. They actually become harder to defeat in a straight up fight, but also become easier to outsmart and manipulate.
Yeah, Pathfinder rage is no longer an uncontrolled, chaotic thing. It's a very measured, 'do I need to keep going' disciplined thing. Just a side-effect of turning it into a rounds/day ability.
Exactly, it has changed. In my opinion, the mechanics being poorly designed in terms of supporting the concept is a likely cause.