|
Well the role of the core pathfinder monk was originally envisioned to be someone who harasses spell casters; they were not supposed to be able to fight martial focussed characters (fighter/barbarian/paladin) head on, but instead play as a support and move around the battlefield to deal with issues.After reading most of the posts it seems like, as others have mentioned, that the biggest problem in fixing monks is that there isn't a consensus of what a monk should be. Some people want a super fist-fighter, some people want an exotic weapon fighter, some people want a super sayan.
After ultimate combat I never observed my monk players to be too weak or weighing down the party (that job went to the rogues).
Really, there are going to have to be some things that a monk just isn't good at even if you can think of exceptions in lore. For example; wizards in PF can't normally use swords and suck in melee even though Gandolf THE wizard uses a sword and seems to a high BAB.
Which would have been very cool to have them be a skirmisher class - a bit weaker in raw power than other martials but gets to pick his battles etc. Unfortunately, the whole Pathfinder system's combat is so static that it doesn't really work. And frankly - until Pummeling Charge or Flying Kick, the monk was in many ways MORE trapped not moving around in combat than many other classes.
Sacred cow? That's Hindu, not Buddhism, monks are Buddhists, they have no sacred cows in their religion. ;)Buddhism originally wasn't a religion at all, mainly a way of discipline and self-enlightenment originating in Hindu India. As it spread outward through Asia, the various cultures that took it in added their own touches, such as pantheons of enlightened beings. Buddhism today is about as fragmented as Protestant Christianity, each branch of Buddhism having it's own variation that's spun off from Gotama's teachings.
This sadly also includes death cults, such as the one that bombed the Tokyo subway with sarin nerve gas a few years back.
I was being humorous, and only a little serious. I have many Japanese relatives who are Shinto/Buddhist, though none of them are particularly religious in an overt way - unlike many Christians, I know. And though I am not extremely knowledgeable, I do have quite a bit more knowledge regarding Buddhism than the average person.
I know 2 Buddhists, outside of my relatives, both female American Buddhist priests. One of them has a quite strong (negative) opinion about the Japanese take on Buddhism - though I can understand, in that many Japanese Buddhists are Pure Land sect, which many non-Japanese consider too easy, or not disciplined enough.
The other is what I'd call a regional Bishop (I don't know her title) in the Midwest. I showed her my work on Kaidan and its reincarnation cycle and take on Buddhism. Surprisingly, she approved, considering it a great teaching tool in understand the Wheel of Life and Death. She even wants me to help her design a board game about the Wheel of Life and Death that could be used as a teaching and therapy tool, more than just a game.
I'm not religious (nor philosophical), probably more an Agnostic than anything else, though I was born and raised in US, with some Christian teaching as a kid. I am interested in religions as a part of culture and history. I have my own personal beliefs, but I don't share them with anyone.
My Dad tells me I shouldn't reveal this as often as I do, but though I am half Japanese, the other half is mostly Irish (some Scottish), which means at least 4 generations back, our family was certainly Catholic. But, 4 generations ago, our family possessed an ancient book of Irish healing spells, and its discovery by the church ended in excommunication of our family back then. So we'd probably still be Catholic today, but we're not. Much of my family is extremely Protestant and quite religious about it, but I only see them only holidays, and mostly avoid them.
Higher wisdom doesn't get rid of your prejudices, otherwise evil people couldn't be wise.
It's more along the lines of "Ah, if I stop calling them lesser races to their faces, it will be easier to manipulate them into doing what I need done, builds their camaraderie towards me, makes it easier to betray them if necessary, and costs me nothing." That's Wisdom at work, cold, brutal, practical.
Letting your prejudice go is more of an alignment change from Evil/Neutral towards Good.
==Aelryinth
|
What the Monk was originally supposed to be, eh?
A class that was the typical "Priest" of Kung-Fu, that studied in a monistary setting and work toward world peace. I always thought of T.V. show "Do you see the grasshopper at your feet."
The mechanics, however, failed in this representation. The LG alignment restriction was out and out wrong, it should have been Non-Chaotic. Using the Unarmed rules that anyone could get was a mistake, and Flurry punished more than it helped. The Mad stat problem only aided in the overall frustration, along with the Medium BAB progression. (Something the Gunslinger should have had)
Yes, the next iteration of PF needs to completely gut and redo the Monk. UNCHAINED! fixes the fighting aspect, but it didn't do much with other aspects that needed "fixing." It also took out the Will Saves.
What the Monk was originally supposed to be, eh?
A class that was the typical "Priest" of Kung-Fu, that studied in a monistary setting and work toward world peace. I always thought of T.V. show "Do you see the grasshopper at your feet."
The mechanics, however, failed in this representation. The LG alignment restriction was out and out wrong, it should have been Non-Chaotic. Using the Unarmed rules that anyone could get was a mistake, and Flurry punished more than it helped. The Mad stat problem only aided in the overall frustration, along with the Medium BAB progression. (Something the Gunslinger should have had)
Yes, the next iteration of PF needs to completely gut and redo the Monk. UNCHAINED! fixes the fighting aspect, but it didn't do much with other aspects that needed "fixing." It also took out the Will Saves.
And yet I see the monk as the internally focused seeker of enlightenment through fisticuffs. =)
not sure how "anyone" could get the unarmed capability of a monk. For most classes, unarmed combat was (and still is) a waste of an attack or a situation like swimming, to be dealt with.
I assume you mean the "must be lawful" as only paladins have to be lawful good. I will wholeheartedly agree with you here: I have never understood the predication that monks have to be lawful because they're disciplined. Just like in 3.5 I never got the reason that Bards had to be non-lawful. but I digress.
Again, I've never gotten the complaint about monks. I take some strength, power attack, and a quarterstaff. I power attack with a two-handed weapon. It hurts bad guys. The end. Flurry got even more overpowered than it was before.
Does the multiple attributes needed hurt? sure. Is it the end of the class? hardly.
|
|
I assume you mean the "must be lawful" as only paladins have to be lawful good. I will wholeheartedly agree with you here: I have never understood the predication that monks have to be lawful because they're disciplined. Just like in 3.5 I never got the reason that Bards had to be non-lawful. but I digress.
Much of that is the argument as to whether Lawful is outwardly or inwardly focused. I think of monks as Lawful because they're disciplined - but I've never thought of Lawful characters as inherently following all laws so long as they don't break their own personal codes of conduct. *shrug*
*Marches around the thread, toting a "ZAHEER IS NOT LAWFUL" sign*
Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
Lawful hardly means enlightened. There are plenty of images of the fire and brimstone judges who throw the book even for minor offenses. Over all- there is a thing called lawful EVIL, you know that, right? You can be extremely petty while sticking to every rule and loophole. Mobsters can often be LE vindictive jerks who take down anyone that messes with THEIR ORDER.
Compare that to the chilled out hippy character. Someone that believes that if everyone was just chill, there would not be a need for such strict rules in the world.
I know these are more tropes, but it is not hard to plug in characters from your own experiences. The fact that there is a place for them at all is a counter argument.
The self discipline needed for enlightenment lends itself to being lawful...but being lawful does not necessarily lend you to being enlightened. For monk tropes, you can go with the KOBRA KAI style of evil monks, who enforce a might makes right rule with their iron fists.
Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
By the reverse of that logic, Lawful people are by definition emotionless and passionless drones, going through life on autopilot and not having to think for themselves.
I'll note that neither of these definitions are listed in the criteria for either set of alignments.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
If anything from the above, I get the takeaway that lawful people are traditionalists, and chaotic people are progressives. Neither of which says anything about emotionality.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Because ki and the associated mystic attributes are not invented, only learned by following the traditions passed down by one's teacher. That's one of the central themes of most of the martial arts literature, whether we're talking about wuxia films, legends of Chang San Feng, or, for that matter, Jedi Academy video games.
Even an innovator like Bruce Lee, who was very clear that every person needed to develop their own version of kung foo, was also very clear that one developed that version by listening to what the teacher said and using the teacher's guidance to achieve personal understanding.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Because ki and the associated mystic attributes are not invented, only learned by following the traditions passed down by one's teacher. That's one of the central themes of most of the martial arts literature, whether we're talking about wuxia films, legends of Chang San Feng, or, for that matter, Jedi Academy video games.
Even an innovator like Bruce Lee, who was very clear that every person needed to develop their own version of kung foo, was also very clear that one developed that version by listening to what the teacher said and using the teacher's guidance to achieve personal understanding.
But why don't ninja have to be lawful then?
|
|
But why don't ninja have to be lawful then?
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Because ki and the associated mystic attributes are not invented, only learned by following the traditions passed down by one's teacher. That's one of the central themes of most of the martial arts literature, whether we're talking about wuxia films, legends of Chang San Feng, or, for that matter, Jedi Academy video games.
Even an innovator like Bruce Lee, who was very clear that every person needed to develop their own version of kung foo, was also very clear that one developed that version by listening to what the teacher said and using the teacher's guidance to achieve personal understanding.
Because... reasons!
|
|
Which would have been very cool to have them be a skirmisher class - a bit weaker in raw power than other martials but gets to pick his battles etc. Unfortunately, the whole Pathfinder system's combat is so static that it doesn't really work. And frankly - until Pummeling Charge or Flying Kick, the monk was in many ways MORE trapped not moving around in combat than many other classes.While the core monk might not be perfect in that role, it is still the role it was supposed to fill.
I agree that it was the intent. It just failed at it horribly.
But why don't ninja have to be lawful then?
Well, to start with, because ninja are Japanese and the fighting monks of Shaolin temple are, of course, Chinese. This puts them in substantially different literary traditions with different sets of tropes.
Monk alignment is tied to the monastic traditions.
Monks learns to use ki with monastic traditions, but that is not the only way to learn to use ki.
Too bad monks are not allowed to use the other methods.
Monk alignment is tied to the monastic traditions.
Monks learns to use ki with monastic traditions, but that is not the only way to learn to use ki.
If ki were a real thing, this might be true. If it's merely a literary construct, then it strongly depends on what literature you read, doesn't it?
Monk alignment is tied to the monastic traditions.
Monks learns to use ki with monastic traditions, but that is not the only way to learn to use ki.If ki were a real thing, this might be true. If it's merely a literary construct, then it strongly depends on what literature you read, doesn't it?
For my sake, let's stay inside the context of pathfinder printed literature.
For my sake, let's stay inside the context of pathfinder printed literature.Monk alignment is tied to the monastic traditions.
Monks learns to use ki with monastic traditions, but that is not the only way to learn to use ki.If ki were a real thing, this might be true. If it's merely a literary construct, then it strongly depends on what literature you read, doesn't it?
Then, yes, the rules do mean what they say, because those embody the tropes that pathfinder is trying to capture. Of course, you could always multiclass into rogue or ninja, but those give you different abilities than you get with a monastic ki pool.
Chaotic is almost by definition the emotional end of the spectrum. Inner peace is not going to be something they have. More like inner exultation, or inner rage, or inner hate...but not inner peace.
Classic monks are tremendously disciplined, not emotional. Chaotics are by definition far more whimsical and devil-may-care. That doesn't mean they can't work hard...but it means they are doers of deeds, not accomplishers of tasks. The long, hard grind of day to day repeating efforts over and over again, which monks do on the long slog to enlightenment, is anathema to Chaotics. Be like working in a cubicle maze as a corporate drone, or something!
==Aelryinth
honestly if you want inner peace I think you'd need to be true neutral. Lawful like mentioned has too much baggage and chaotic is too focused on the now.
edit: oh my god that typo
i wish there were no alignment restrictions so that i could more easily play a monk and not actually be a monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.If anything from the above, I get the takeaway that lawful people are traditionalists, and chaotic people are progressives. Neither of which says anything about emotionality.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
this is why I hate that chaotic evil doesn't actually have any chaos mixed in. Chaotic evil would be extremist freedom fighters, not demons and insane evil people.
|
this is why I hate that chaotic evil doesn't actually have any chaos mixed in. Chaotic evil would be extremist freedom fighters, not demons and insane evil people.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.If anything from the above, I get the takeaway that lawful people are traditionalists, and chaotic people are progressives. Neither of which says anything about emotionality.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Have you seen A Clockwork Orange? Alex is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.
I think you are overlooking the Evil part of Chaotic Evil. I played a CE character in 3.x. Definitely not a freedom fighter. Maybe they are destructive elements for the government, but they aren't doing it for the good of the people. CG would fight Evil, even if it was the government. They believe that people shouldn't suffer under Tyrants. Typically they are after Freedom for Good's sake, such as being able to help slaves escape from their masters. CN rebels against any Lawful influence. Freedom for Freedom's sake. CE seeks to destroy Lawful and Good entities. Freedom to do whatever they want, including murder for murder's sake, is what a CE "Freedom Fighter" would be after.
this is why I hate that chaotic evil doesn't actually have any chaos mixed in. Chaotic evil would be extremist freedom fighters, not demons and insane evil people.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.If anything from the above, I get the takeaway that lawful people are traditionalists, and chaotic people are progressives. Neither of which says anything about emotionality.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Have you seen A Clockwork Orange? Alex is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.
I think you are overlooking the Evil part of Chaotic Evil. I played a CE character in 3.x. Definitely not a freedom fighter. Maybe they are destructive elements for the government, but they aren't doing it for the good of the people. CG would fight Evil, even if it was the government. They believe that people shouldn't suffer under Tyrants. Typically they are after Freedom for Good's sake, such as being able to help slaves escape from their masters. CN rebels against any Lawful influence. Freedom for Freedom's sake. CE seeks to destroy Lawful and Good entities. Freedom to do whatever they want, including murder for murder's sake, is what a CE "Freedom Fighter" would be after.
when CE ultimately just becomes Evil++ i'm more inclined to think they're overlooking the chaos part. Neutral Evil should be the MOST even you can be the insane people and the ones with no reason to kill people other than enjoyment should be in the neutral evil bracket. CE should value freedom and forward thinking over a neutral evil person. 95% of the time they don't.
extremeist freedom fighters are the kinds of people who bomb parliament or wish for anarchy or want to have a non-peaceful revolution. They'd be against Lawful good governing bodies for instance. they oppose the law and carry it out through evil means. Neutral evil doesn't care if the law exists or not, they just want to hurt people and generally this puts them at ends with the law.
when CE ultimately just becomes Evil++ i'm more inclined to think they're overlooking the chaos part. Neutral Evil should be the MOST even you can be the insane people and the ones with no reason to kill people other than enjoyment should be...this is why I hate that chaotic evil doesn't actually have any chaos mixed in. Chaotic evil would be extremist freedom fighters, not demons and insane evil people.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.If anything from the above, I get the takeaway that lawful people are traditionalists, and chaotic people are progressives. Neither of which says anything about emotionality.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Have you seen A Clockwork Orange? Alex is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.
I think you are overlooking the Evil part of Chaotic Evil. I played a CE character in 3.x. Definitely not a freedom fighter. Maybe they are destructive elements for the government, but they aren't doing it for the good of the people. CG would fight Evil, even if it was the government. They believe that people shouldn't suffer under Tyrants. Typically they are after Freedom for Good's sake, such as being able to help slaves escape from their masters. CN rebels against any Lawful influence. Freedom for Freedom's sake. CE seeks to destroy Lawful and Good entities. Freedom to do whatever they want, including murder for murder's sake, is what a CE "Freedom Fighter" would be after.
You are assuming that the gov is LG. A FREEDOM fighter is, inherently, against a system they view as corrupt or oppressive.Chaotic Good is the freedom fighter. Whether the system ACTUALLY IS oppressive or not is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is if they THINK it is oppressive and unjust. And extreme CG would do things like bomb a build if that is what they viewed is what it took to push for freedom and liberty.
Now a Chaotic Neutral wants freedom for freedoms sake. These are seen as the Anarchists. A perfect example of Chaotic Neutral is V from V for Vendetta. He is against the regime purely to tear it down and for freedom for freedom's sake, not for any real "good." He isn't in it because freedom is good and makes people happy. He jsut wants to watch the Londom Government crumble.
Now CHaotic Evil is against the system for themselves. They don't care about whether their fight against a system will help or harm others. They just want to do what THEY want. Chaotic Evil are the epitomal self-centered, spoiled child. They will do what they want, and if the government is telling them no, well by hell screw them too. But they really don't care who it affects outside themselves. They want to murder somone? By god they are gonna murder them. Want to steal? They are gonna steal. Want to help an old lady across the street? Then by god they will. The Joker is the shining example of Chaotic Evil. He does whatever the hell he wants, regardless of anything. He cares not about who gets caught in the crossfire or who it might piss off. He just wants to watch the world burn.
when CE ultimately just becomes Evil++ i'm more inclined to think they're overlooking the chaos part. Neutral Evil should be the MOST even you can be the insane people and the ones with no reason to kill people other than enjoyment should be in the neutral evil bracket.
extremeist freedom fighters are the kinds of people who bomb parliament or wish for anarchy or want to have a non-peaceful revolution. They'd be against Lawful good governing bodies for instance. they oppose the law and carry it out through evil means.
To be fair, Neutral Evil is the most evil in Pathfinder. Daemons are so bad that demons and archons will work together to stop them.
when CE ultimately just becomes Evil++ i'm more inclined to think they're overlooking the chaos part. Neutral Evil should be the MOST even you can be the insane people and the ones with no reason to kill people other than enjoyment should be...this is why I hate that chaotic evil doesn't actually have any chaos mixed in. Chaotic evil would be extremist freedom fighters, not demons and insane evil people.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.If anything from the above, I get the takeaway that lawful people are traditionalists, and chaotic people are progressives. Neither of which says anything about emotionality.
Although given the above definition, I can now see why monks have would tend to be lawful, given that most martial arts are highly rooted in tradition. It still doesn't explain, however, why monks who aren't lawful don't have ki.
Have you seen A Clockwork Orange? Alex is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.
I think you are overlooking the Evil part of Chaotic Evil. I played a CE character in 3.x. Definitely not a freedom fighter. Maybe they are destructive elements for the government, but they aren't doing it for the good of the people. CG would fight Evil, even if it was the government. They believe that people shouldn't suffer under Tyrants. Typically they are after Freedom for Good's sake, such as being able to help slaves escape from their masters. CN rebels against any Lawful influence. Freedom for Freedom's sake. CE seeks to destroy Lawful and Good entities. Freedom to do whatever they want, including murder for murder's sake, is what a CE "Freedom Fighter" would be after.
Neutral evil is evil for evil's sake. They embody evil. A good example of Neutral Evil would be Ted Bundy. He was not someone against the system per se. He was not someone who was ritualistic though. He was just perverse and was a rather sick man. He was just evil.
A lot of times also NE is evil that just goes beyond standard conventions of Law or Chaos. Their very existance is almost a affront to all. Sadistic mass murderers and those that take part in darker fetishes (Cannibalism, Sadism, Necrophilia, blood orgies, ect) tend to fall more into Neutral Evil. NE is something like Clive Barker's Hellraiser creatures.
oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want. A CE is pretty much a being like a little child. They want what they want and if they don't get it, they throw a tantrum. The difference is that CE creatures tend to be a bit stronger than a 4 year old child...
NE would want the destruction of EVERYTHING. Despite most of the outcome would look similiar to what the CE would want, they tend to butt heads with Demons and CE because CE is inherently Self Centered, and NE and Daemons want the destruction of EVERYTHING... including the CE dude and themselves. CE demons still want to exist, they stil cling desperatly to life because life is fun for them. While CE pillage and destroy, they pillage and destroy because it is fun for them, its pleasurable for them. NE would take away all of their fun. And that just won't do.
I feel like people are getting into the trap of saying "this alignment is" rather than "people of this alignment can be". This kind of rigidity is why we get enormous cluster f&%* paladin threads.
i'm specifically saying extremest freedom fighters. people who just as much evil as they are against the government. they should occasionally be at odds with lawful evil on an ethical stand point, but more than likely their just Gilligan each other because they're both evil.
oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want.
that's my problem nothing about what you just said tinges the character any more chaotic than the first one.
like if a lawful evil person is someone who works within the system to get what he wants, that's still self centered.
A chaotic evil person values freedom in the same way a lawful evil person values stability.
if you know of Metal gear revengence, Senator Armstrong is Chaotic Evil. He specifically thinks he needs to tear the system down so that people can choose their own fate and make their own choices, so that they can fight and die for what THEY believe in, however to do this he is willing to assassinate anyone in his way kill hundreds of people and train a legion of cybersoldiers by harvesting brains from children in third world countries, that the weak should be purged so that the strong can actually accomplish what they deserve, and even possibly start world war 3.
this is what true CE is, not someone who is selfish, any alignment can be selfish.
i'm specifically saying extremest freedom fighters. people who just as much evil as they are against the government. they should occasionally be at odds with lawful evil on an ethical stand point, but more than likely their just Gilligan each other because they're both evil.
But thats the thing. CN/CG are actually prone to doing some heavy handed techniques if the need arised. CN in particulair would be an extremist freedom fighter. An example of CN would the IRA (Irish Republican Army). CN will resort to bombing and killing to get their point across. But they, in and of themselves are not really evil... they are just very strongly against the establishment.
oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want.that's my problem nothing about what you just said tinges the character any more chaotic than the first one.
Chaotic does not mean they are inherently against government. Chaotic in D&D/Pathfinder is simply being mercurial and emotional and more about the individual.
Also, a Chaotic society could very well exist. It's not that hard to imagine. They have some agreed upon rules but nothing really set in stone. They would also believe more in the "spirit" of the law vs the letter of the law. A chaotic town would be like a frontier town which just kinda sprung up.
Lawful, in society term, is more about tradition, order, and rigidity. In a more lawful society they would be more like our system in that there are very set rules, with clearly defined punishments based upon past precedent, and clearly established ideas of correct behavior.
A chaotic person is not insane. Now granted, insanity could very well end up CE or NE or CN, but Chaotic by itself is not "chaotic"
oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want.that's my problem nothing about what you just said tinges the character any more chaotic than the first one.
like if a lawful evil person is someone who works within the system to get what he wants, that's still self centered.
A chaotic evil person values freedom in the same way a lawful evil person values stability.
if you know of Metal gear revengence, Senator Armstrong is Chaotic Evil. He specifically thinks he needs to tear the system down so that people can choose their own fate and make their own choices, so that they can fight and die for what THEY believe in, however to do this he is willing to assassinate anyone in his way kill hundreds of people and train a legion of cybersoldiers by harvesting brains from children in third world countries, that the weak should be purged so that the strong can actually accomplish what they deserve, and even possibly start world war 3.
this is what true CE is, not someone who is selfish, any alignment can be selfish.
That is CN/CG. He is just extremist CG/CN. He is caring about others and thinking of others. Sure, he commits some atrocious things, but if you think about, does not a Paladin also? Does not a Paladin kill whole armies in the name of "Good and justice?"
A CE is beyond just selfish. A Lawful Evil is selfish, but is still willing to control himself for better "good" of himself because he still acknowledges laws. Or he has a strong personal code. A perfect example is Cheliax. They have self-centered people but they still temper themselves and work within the legal system.
A CE is Selfishness in its most pure state. They don't care about ANYTHING outside themselves, and NOTHING will hold them back from doing what they want. No personal code, no legal system, no people who happen to be in their way. Where a LE will still hold themselves back because they still need to work within their laws (for instance you don't see Cheliaxians running around killing people in the street because someone pissed them off. They still have laws in place... they just wait till they have plausible deniability). A CE has no reserves. They simply do because they can.
oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want.that's my problem nothing about what you just said tinges the character any more chaotic than the first one.Chaotic does not mean they are inherently against government. Chaotic in D&D/Pathfinder is simply being mercurial and emotional and more about the individual.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
I don't see any of that, i do see it from, being evil though.
oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want.that's my problem nothing about what you just said tinges the character any more chaotic than the first one.
like if a lawful evil person is someone who works within the system to get what he wants, that's still self centered.
A chaotic evil person values freedom in the same way a lawful evil person values stability.
if you know of Metal gear revengence, Senator Armstrong is Chaotic Evil. He specifically thinks he needs to tear the system down so that people can choose their own fate and make their own choices, so that they can fight and die for what THEY believe in, however to do this he is willing to assassinate anyone in his way kill hundreds of people and train a legion of cybersoldiers by harvesting brains from children in third world countries, that the weak should be purged so that the strong can actually accomplish what they deserve, and even possibly start world war 3.
this is what true CE is, not someone who is selfish, any alignment can be selfish.
That is CN/CG. He is just extremist CG/CN. He is caring about others and thinking of others. Sure, he commits some atrocious things, but if you think about, does not a Paladin also? Does not a Paladin kill whole armies in the name of "Good and justice?"
A CE is beyond just selfish. A Lawful Evil is selfish, but is still willing to control himself for better "good" of himself because he still acknowledges laws. Or he has a strong personal code. A perfect example is Cheliax. They have self-centered people but they still temper themselves and work within the legal system.
A CE is Selfishness in its most pure state. They don't care about ANYTHING outside themselves, and NOTHING will hold them back from doing what they want. No personal code, no legal system, no people who happen...
lordy he is not neutral or good in any state of mind. he wants to purge the weak. he's trying to start WW3 to take the profits and use them to break the system. they assassinated a South African president just to destabilize the region to keep PMC usage up. the main protagonist is largely chaotic good as he ignored the laws and went into a reckless attack on their HQs all because of all the loss of life they were causing.
But why don't ninja have to be lawful then?Well, to start with, because ninja are Japanese and the fighting monks of Shaolin temple are, of course, Chinese. This puts them in substantially different literary traditions with different sets of tropes.
True. You will notice that a lot of 'traditional' ninja weapons either come from Ryukyu or Okinawa- ie- the islands that were later conquered and brought under the mainland's control. IE- the most likely place you would find rebels.
You will also find that a lot of 'traditional' ninja weapons are derived from farming tools. The kind of thing they could have on their person without being suspected.
Overall, 'ninjas' are much, much more connected with rebellion than monks, and thus they can easily be connected to a chaotic alignment. Of course, ninjas are just as easily associated with a rebellious assassin as they are with being a lord's loyal spy.
Monk alignment is tied to the monastic traditions.
Monks learns to use ki with monastic traditions, but that is not the only way to learn to use ki.
Too bad monks are not allowed to use the other methods.
Two problems with that:
1) Your ki-using Monk might've been taught how to use ki in accordance with the tradition under which he was taught, as was his master, and his master's master, etc., but go back far enough and you will find someone who achieved the use of ki on his own, through his own innovation. And if such a thing could happen once, why not a second time?
2) Non-lawful ki-using Monks (even if they don't have the Enlightened Warrior trait) can still increase their ki. They can still bump up their Wisdom modifier, and I think the Extra Ki feat is still available, as well.
Monk alignment is tied to the monastic traditions.
Monks learns to use ki with monastic traditions, but that is not the only way to learn to use ki.
Too bad monks are not allowed to use the other methods.Two problems with that:
1) Your ki-using Monk might've been taught how to use ki in accordance with the tradition under which he was taught, as was his master, and his master's master, etc., but go back far enough and you will find someone who achieved the use of ki on his own, through his own innovation. And if such a thing could happen once, why not a second time?
2) Non-lawful ki-using Monks (even if they don't have the Enlightened Warrior trait) can still increase their ki. They can still bump up their Wisdom modifier, and I think the Extra Ki feat is still available, as well.
1.) Maybe man never learned how to "get ki" himself but in the beginning an outsider taught him.
2.) Becoming non-lawful just means you are unable to keep up with future monk lessons, not that you are forever unable to use what you already learned and maybe reinforce it though his own means.
I mean these are not very grand explanations, but will they do? Just quick answers how it might go.
1.) Maybe man never learned how to "get ki" himself but in the beginning an outsider taught him.
1) Your ki-using Monk might've been taught how to use ki in accordance with the tradition under which he was taught, as was his master, and his master's master, etc., but go back far enough and you will find someone who achieved the use of ki on his own, through his own innovation.
That's actually the way most if not all of the martial arts origin myths I'm familiar with have it. If not an outsider, then a mythical understanding of nature that occurred only after a long period of self-discipline to enhance the master's connection to the universe itself.
For example, Chang San Feng, the legendary creator of Taijiquan, was a Taoist alchemist and immortal who happened to be watching a snake and a bird fight. A number of arts are supposed to have been taught to the founding master in a dream, direct from the Emperor of Heaven.
...oh and NE also embodies Nihilism and Annihilationism. Where CE wants to destroy because they are self centered, they still want to do what they want.that's my problem nothing about what you just said tinges the character any more chaotic than the first one.
like if a lawful evil person is someone who works within the system to get what he wants, that's still self centered.
A chaotic evil person values freedom in the same way a lawful evil person values stability.
if you know of Metal gear revengence, Senator Armstrong is Chaotic Evil. He specifically thinks he needs to tear the system down so that people can choose their own fate and make their own choices, so that they can fight and die for what THEY believe in, however to do this he is willing to assassinate anyone in his way kill hundreds of people and train a legion of cybersoldiers by harvesting brains from children in third world countries, that the weak should be purged so that the strong can actually accomplish what they deserve, and even possibly start world war 3.
this is what true CE is, not someone who is selfish, any alignment can be selfish.
That is CN/CG. He is just extremist CG/CN. He is caring about others and thinking of others. Sure, he commits some atrocious things, but if you think about, does not a Paladin also? Does not a Paladin kill whole armies in the name of "Good and justice?"
A CE is beyond just selfish. A Lawful Evil is selfish, but is still willing to control himself for better "good" of himself because he still acknowledges laws. Or he has a strong personal code. A perfect example is Cheliax. They have self-centered people but they still temper themselves and work within the legal system.
A CE is Selfishness in its most pure state. They don't care about ANYTHING outside themselves, and NOTHING will hold them back from doing what they want. No personal code, no legal
I missed that last part. Well then he is not a freedom fighter now is he? He just wants war. He is a warmonger and wants war to keep profiting. Ironically that is actually more Lawful Evil than anything. Lawful =/= following all the laws of a region. A Lawful Evil utilizes the system for personal gain and power. Well the wanting to keep up the PMC stuff.
The "I want people to be able to choose what they want best and to fight for what they believe in and I am willing to sacrifice everything to do it, no matter the cost" is again, more CN. They are not evil in mind, just they do evil actions in that the ends justifies teh means. But then you have the part where he wants to strong to rule over the weak, which, again falls more into LE or CE. A tyrannical society would be LE but if you are talking more "survival of the fittest" then it would be CE.
So the question is then, is he looking to simply maintain his profits and power by maintaining War and profitting from the consequences (LE), or does he completely want to wipe the system out so people can their own choices (CN), or does he want to whipe the system to set up his own system with the strong dominating all (CE/LE).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the question is then, is he looking to simply maintain his profits and power by maintaining War and profitting from the consequences (LE), or does he completely want to wipe the system out so people can their own choices (CN), or does he want to whipe the system to set up his own system with the strong dominating all (CE/LE).
Typically, none of the above.
Alex, from Clockwork Orange, is (again) a good example. He doesn't want to wipe out the system, nor does he want to fight for freedom. He just wants to be left alone, to do what he wants to do, and doesn't care about what anyone else wants.
Someone who wants to fight for freedom in the abstract is implicitly concerned about other people's freedom, not just his own, which is starting to move us back into neutral territory. An extreme case of chaotic evil doesn't care about "the strong dominating all." What someone else does over in the next town -- or the next block -- is of no concern to him unless it somehow prevents him from getting what he wants.