|
I have no problem with giving out alignment infractions both with good and neutral creatures committing evil actions however I seem to be one of the only people in my area who also gives out good alignment infractions.
What I mean to say is that if a Neutral, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral character do what I consider and the rest of the table as well consider to be a particular "Good" act I'll record on their chronicle that they received a "Good" tick mark understanding that after three such acts their alignment would shift toward Good.
Am I the only one that does this and should I just stop because it is silly?
It is silly but if no one complains and you're not being a dick a about it it's not that big a deal, I honestly wouldn't care if you did that to me personally :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If you need to stay non-good (probably because you worship an evil deity or something like that), then realistically, you're going to have to police that yourself.
Although, I did once mark a chaotic alignment infraction on a monk who punched out two hired thugs that had already surrendered.
|
Marking good ticks on a character sheet is encouraging a character to commit evil to balance it out, isn't it?Well from another thread on the boards all you have to do to get an evil tick is to refuse to heal some one. So getting rid of that good infraction should be a breeze.....
If you want to gripe about it, take it back to the other thread, or start a new one. Don't derail this one.
|
Well, since Evil alignment infractions need warning that the action is evil before being given, so should Good alignment infractions, yes?
And, honestly, in PFS, since there is no defined time between games, just let the XN character do something evil offscreen, instead of requiring it be done onscreen to cancel out a good tick.
I have no problem with giving out alignment infractions both with good and neutral creatures committing evil actions however I seem to be one of the only people in my area who also gives out good alignment infractions.
What I mean to say is that if a Neutral, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral character do what I consider and the rest of the table as well consider to be a particular "Good" act I'll record on their chronicle that they received a "Good" tick mark understanding that after three such acts their alignment would shift toward Good.
Am I the only one that does this and should I just stop because it is silly?
It's not silly, as you are viewing alignment as its written in the book, and characters should be accountable for their actions, how accountable and the way you go about it is up for debate.
Alignment is a generic paradigm, an ultra-simplistic way of looking at character motivation. It's contrived, at times non-sensical and fairly immature.
Davos the Cavalier
For example, Davos a human lawful/neutral cavalier, he has taken a knight's oath to show respect to all his peers, demand respect from the lower class and to be identified in battle with a clear display of armorial bearing (like a tabard with heraldry).
Davos also lies to his mother about his frequents visits to brothels (chaotic action), has killed a few orc prisoners for throwing mud, soiling his beautiful velvet cloak (evil action).
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
Yet the alignment rules prevents such a character like Davos from being created.
The History of Alignment
In early versions of D&D, alignment's original conception was based around Michael Moorcock's idea that characters aligned themselves with either forces of law or chaos, not as a moral compass or a way of establishing character motivations but as an ally, kind of makes sense when look at spells like protection from chaos.
IMO what force a character allies themselves with should be separate from their characters motivations and moral compass or lack thereof.
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
How is this a chaotic action?
How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
Marking good ticks on a character sheet is encouraging a character to commit evil to balance it out, isn't it?
That I would see as one dangerous part of ticking good acts. IT encourages things like "I will not heal your mortally wounded character although I could easily do so. I know that's an evil act, but it will keep my CN druid from becoming CG."
Marking good ticks on a character sheet is encouraging a character to commit evil to balance it out, isn't it?That I would see as one dangerous part of ticking good acts. IT encourages things like "I will not heal your mortally wounded character although I could easily do so. I know that's an evil act, but it will keep my CN druid from becoming CG."
I agree,
Furthermore, you can't counteract evil acts with good acts. Evil is evil and bad reputations are usually remembered for a long time, in many cases remembered for a lifetime.
If a character kills a farmer's son, the farmer will want revenge no matter what good acts the character might have done, unless they try to redeem themselves for the act in question, like casting a raise dead spell on the farmer's son.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate it when a GM points out a pattern of alignment related acts. Points out, NOT noting it on the chronicle sheet.
It causes me to reevaluate the character, to see if I think the alignment on the sheet is still accurate.
Alignment is SUCH a fuzzy thing that I really prefer that I just get to decide my alignment. In an ideal world, that WOULD include how evil I am. But PFS isn't ideal, the "no evil PC" rule is necessary, so noting evil infractions makes sense. Noting other infractions doesn't.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, 90% of the things people seem to consider good/evil/lawful/chaotic acts are just a bit off center from neutral. Good and Evil aren't being nice/being a jerk, they are BIG, they are DRAMATIC - they are putting yourself between the demon and the party to save the squishy members, or sacrificing the souls of the innocent for power. Most people in the world should really be TN - those with a strong enough bias in an alignment axis to show up with an aura when checked with divine magic should be doing something dramatic to earn that.
I know that doesn't really fit with the alignment system as it's currently implemented... but frankly, the alignment systems as implemented is so horrendously broken that it's not worth the paper it's written on.
|
|
Frederick here is somewhat (in)famous at my local PFS tables for the fact that he basically destroys bodily remains if he has even the slightest suspicion that they're going to get up and try to eat his allies.
This, in addition to his emphatic and frequent expression of his love of murdering evil people (Silver Crusade, baby!), basically forever bars him from being chaotic good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.
|
|
No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
I couldnt put it better.
Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
According to the RAW, A cavalier/knights tradition is fighting with any simple or martial weapons... Even Paladins and inquisitors have the option of using a favored weapon of their god... but its' not required!
Unless you're using some weird archtype or something. I'm sure there are some of those out there.
Frankly I wouldn't play in a game where the DM looks at the character and says "nope! Not cookie cutter enough..."
Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
According to the RAW, A cavalier/knights tradition is fighting with any simple or martial weapons... Even Paladins and inquisitors have the option of using a favored weapon of their god... but its' not required!
Unless you're using some weird archtype or something. I'm sure there are some of those out there.
Frankly I wouldn't play in a game where the DM looks at the character and says "nope! Not cookie cutter enough..."
Nope, there is no mention of simple and martial weapon proficiency being a Cavalier tradition.
I used the longsword as an example. Lawful Cavaliers would have different traditional weapons based on region and culture.
The Lawful alignment is not a requirement to be a Cavalier but if a player decides to play a Lawful Cavalier they have to follow tradition (RAW, CRB p 167-168). And combat has no exemption from tradition, if anything you would find tradition prevalent in combat situations.
No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
So you can't have a traditional way of fighting? That's really strange.
So you can't have a traditional way of fighting? That's really strange.No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
Oh you can but that way of fighting would be up to the character/player not some BS about not using this one specific weapon can change your alignment due to the fact real world Cavaliers/Knights used longswords.
There is nothing in the class description or mechanics that say they have to use longswords in fact the mechanics point to them using whatever weapons that they want due to their weapon proficiency being all simple and martial weapons like Drake and Phantom mentioned.
Again saying that since he uses a weapon that was gifted to him by an admirer instead of a longsword is a chaotic action and should be marked as such making that the character couldn't be LN is completely asinine.
So you can't have a traditional way of fighting? That's really strange.No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).How is this a chaotic action?
He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).
Oh you can but that way of fighting would be up to the character/player not some BS about not using this one specific weapon can change your alignment due to the fact real world Cavaliers/Knights used longswords.
There is nothing in the class description or mechanics that say they have to use longswords in fact the mechanics point to them using whatever weapons that they want due to their weapon proficiency being all simple and martial weapons like Drake and Phantom mentioned.
Again saying that since he uses a weapon that was gifted to him by an admirer instead of a longsword is a chaotic action and should be marked as such making that the character couldn't be LN is completely asinine.
The reason why there isn't a game mechanic about tradition and weapons is that the Pathfinder game leaves 'flavor' up to the GM and players. That applies to every class and race in the game.
And yes a GM can rule that a lawful human cavalier that uses a gnome hooked hammer is performing a chaotic action.
If you read my original post I said there is a problem with alignment in general. Not that cavaliers can't be an exception to the rule in relation to weapons and tradition.
i used Davos the cavalier as an example to why the alignment system is deeply flawed.
|
The reason why there isn't a game mechanic about tradition and weapons is that the Pathfinder game leaves 'flavor' up to the GM and players. That applies to every class and race in the game.
And yes a GM can rule that a lawful human cavalier that uses a gnome hooked hammer is performing a chaotic action.
So that ruling could perhaps be made in a home game -- but not in PFS as campaign leadership has not given any indication that such "flavor" fits with Organized Play.
So that ruling could perhaps be made in a home game -- but not in PFS as campaign leadership has not given any indication that such "flavor" fits with Organized Play.The reason why there isn't a game mechanic about tradition and weapons is that the Pathfinder game leaves 'flavor' up to the GM and players. That applies to every class and race in the game.
And yes a GM can rule that a lawful human cavalier that uses a gnome hooked hammer is performing a chaotic action.
I agree,
The same can be said about the OP, campaign leadership has not suggested the idea of 'alignment ticking- 3 times and you are out' is part of organised play. Yet someone has introduced it into organised play.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the goal of the tick marks OP?
Are you trying to remind your fellow PFS participants that a PC shouldn't be played within the confines of an alignment, but rather than the way a PC is played should determine their alignment? And these tick marks serve as a polite reminder that perhaps their alignment should be more good than neutral, based off how they play their character?
I'd be fine with that, although you probably wouldn't need tick marks to get my attention.
Or, is this your way of pointing out the flaws inherent in the alignment system carried over from DND (which by all accounts is a rather arcane system)? Because I can get behind that as well. Although in that case it likely shouldn't be recorded on a chronicle sheet, unless it is a note being made in jest.
If, however, this addition causes players further grief when dealing with the alignment system rather than assisting them in choosing an appropriate alignment, I'm hesitant to give it my support. Most of the time I like to give my players the benefit of the doubt, and alignment is no exception.
Personally, the alignment system is something that has always irked me the wrong way. Surely most Aspis agents don't self identify as evil, despite what their stat blocks read. I feel like as a GM we should be on the look out for major alignment infractions. Good characters committing evil acts, lawful committing chaotic, etc. Anything minor should be mentioned at the table, "hey, your character seems more chaotic than lawful, have you considered NG or CG?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you just use a weapon I don't want you use?
Okay, well I am pushing your PC one step closer to being unusable.
Jeez, we can't just have Monks using Greataxes, and Paladins using Nunchaku.
Players should suffer for such nonsense.
:)
A paladin with nunchaku sounds awesome.
|
|
I started my career with an "N" written in for alignment. Anyone who has played with this character probably realized that this character was way more chaotic than anything else. So I added a "C" in front of the "N". I didn't need GMs to track this alignment change. It was obvious.
That said, I have seen characters who definitely needed alignment tracking.
The most egregious was the arsonist paladin. I played a few scenarios with that guy. He wanted to burn down every building we came across. "What's the big deal? Only the bad guys are inside," he said to me once after I protested. I thought the GM should mark him toward chaotic, but the GM was new and didn't really feel comfortable making that sort of call at the time.
Like Walter said, if the character has any sort of alignment restrictions, we should be tracking those actions. A cleric who worships a NE deity must remain neutral in this campaign. We should be tracking both axes in both directions.
But for other characters, I think it is sufficient to just gently say to the player, "Hey your character acts pretty lawful. You might want to reconsider what you have written down for your alignment."
|
|
What's the goal of the tick marks OP?
Are you trying to remind your fellow PFS participants that a PC shouldn't be played within the confines of an alignment, but rather than the way a PC is played should determine their alignment? And these tick marks serve as a polite reminder that perhaps their alignment should be more good than neutral, based off how they play their character?
I'd be fine with that, although you probably wouldn't need tick marks to get my attention.
Or, is this your way of pointing out the flaws inherent in the alignment system carried over from DND (which by all accounts is a rather arcane system)? Because I can get behind that as well. Although in that case it likely shouldn't be recorded on a chronicle sheet, unless it is a note being made in jest.
If, however, this addition causes players further grief when dealing with the alignment system rather than assisting them in choosing an appropriate alignment, I'm hesitant to give it my support. Most of the time I like to give my players the benefit of the doubt, and alignment is no exception.
Personally, the alignment system is something that has always irked me the wrong way. Surely most Aspis agents don't self identify as evil, despite what their stat blocks read. I feel like as a GM we should be on the look out for major alignment infractions. Good characters committing evil acts, lawful committing chaotic, etc. Anything minor should be mentioned at the table, "hey, your character seems more chaotic than lawful, have you considered NG or CG?"
I never felt my goal was malicious rather, I do it more in good faith or jest then much else but also to try to point that being neutral means doing both good and sometimes evil and that idea should be acknowledged, I've yet to encounter a player that plays the Futurama-esque Neutral People.
Players do good acts and they shouldn't go unnoticed or unacknowledged, not to say that I am trying to reward them but rather help them see that the character they are playing may not be True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral.To date, I've only caused one alignment shift and is was for a particularly egregious act of evil and the player was warned fully well ahead of time.
More over I posted this question to see if I was the only one that bothered with the alignment system beyond using it to make Paladins fall which from my time on the boards seems to be the only thing its used for now a days.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Understood! I think that true neutrality is something so difficult that only Futurama could really capture it. That aside, I imagine that everyone acts outside their alignments from time to time. That's when your character is outside their comfort zone and questions what actions they are taking, and that's really good for character development.
Only if those actions become chronic might I suggest an alignment shift, and it would probably happen face to face, rather than being noted on the chronicle.