Well most divines are whatever alignment their.diety is.
Fighter is pretty generic.
Druid was originally only TN
Wizards, to me, are stereotypically Neutral (they are pursuing power through spellcasting, sometimes at the expense of personal relationships), and make GREAT badguys, so often Evil.
I've always leaned towards the idea that Divine casters produce a lot of Good people, and Arcane goes towards evil (as you don't need a code of ethics/system of beliefs).
Paladins: LG
Monks: LN
Barbarians: CN
Clerics/Inquisitors: Whatever their deity is
Anti-Paladin: CE
Everyone without pointless alignment restrictions: Neutral
Those clerics of Lamashtu, Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug are just trying to enslave or destroy the world to help the people in it. ;)
I've always leaned towards the idea that Divine casters produce a lot of Good people,
Oh there are bad guys too, but Clerics have faith restrictions, so alignments are a large part of the class...
Unless you are playing in a game where evil has already won, I think the assumption is that good outnumbers evil, but evil has significantly more powerful champions (Hence BBEG being so scary).
I'm not saying that there aren't evil clerics, just LESS of them.
Those clerics of Lamashtu, Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug are just trying to enslave or destroy the world to help the people in it. ;)
I've always leaned towards the idea that Divine casters produce a lot of Good people,
Oh there are bad guys too, but Clerics have faith restrictions, so alignments are a large part of the class...
Unless you are playing in a game where evil has already won, I think the assumption is that good outnumbers evil, but evil has significantly more powerful champions (Hence BBEG being so scary).
I'm not saying that there aren't evil clerics, just LESS of them.
Um... I would imagine there are MORE evil clerics than wizards. Wizards are already rare. Also they tend to be more neutral than anything. Remember, there are ALOT of evil dieties... and each one has clerics... not justvthe standard gods but you also cannot forget things like demon princes, the 4 horsemen, and the elder gods and Cthulhu... oh and Rovagug...
To say nothing of the NE followers of TN gods or the CE/LE followers of CN/LN gods.
Evil is easy and people are weak.
Um... I would imagine there are MORE evil clerics than wizards. Wizards are already rare. Also they tend to be more neutral than anything. Remember, there are ALOT of evil dieties... and each one has clerics... not justvthe standard gods but you also cannot forget things like demon princes, the 4 horsemen, and the elder gods and Cthulhu... oh and Rovagug...Those clerics of Lamashtu, Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, and Rovagug are just trying to enslave or destroy the world to help the people in it. ;)
I've always leaned towards the idea that Divine casters produce a lot of Good people,
Oh there are bad guys too, but Clerics have faith restrictions, so alignments are a large part of the class...
Unless you are playing in a game where evil has already won, I think the assumption is that good outnumbers evil, but evil has significantly more powerful champions (Hence BBEG being so scary).
I'm not saying that there aren't evil clerics, just LESS of them.
If that's how you do it...
Larger numbers of religions does not necessarily mean more worshippers.
Like I said, unless evil has won, there has be a reason Good is predominant in a setting.
In any case, I don't recall seeing published numbers on religions and number of worshippers, so it's all just conjecture.
I've always thought the evil religions were described as having to hide and such, for fear of being found out by the Good ones... (Within the non-evil kingdoms, obviously).
Oh, I've always thought Chaotic was a good choice for Swashbuckler.
Good isn't predominant. Neutral is predominant.
Core Classes
Barbarian: CE
Bard: CG
Cleric: NG
Druid: TN
Fighter: LN
Monk: LE
Paladin: LG
Ranger: CN
Rogue: CN
Sorcerer: CG
Wizard: LN
-=-=-=-
Base Classes
Alchemist: NE
Cavalier: LE
Gunslinger: CE
Inquisitor: CE
Magus: LE
Oracle: CG
Summoner: CN
Witch: NG
-=-=-=-
Alternate Classes
Antipaladin: LE*
Ninja: LN
Samurai: LE
-=-=-=-
Hybrid Classes
Arcanist: TN
Bloodrager: CG
Brawler: CN
Hunter: LN
Investigator: LN
Shaman: NG
Skald: NG
Slayer: CE
Swashbuckler: CN
Warpriest: LN
-=-=-=-
NPC Classes
Adept: TN
Aristocrat: LE
Commoner: NG
Expert: LN
Warrior: CE
*Yes, I know it's restricted to chaotic evil, but the concept to me fits LE better.
Monk: LE
Alchemist: NE
Cavalier: LE
Gunslinger: CE
Inquisitor: CE
Magus: LE
Samurai: LE
Wut
All mortals are fairly neutral in their alignments, since they cannot truly represent the true extremities that edge alignment represent. After all, motivation and actions are usually veiled in deep and heavy reasons.
Unless you are a product of a lazy GM/Player who began winging it 4 sessions in.
Most knights were jerks? Thats the only reasonable one I see. =P
Yeah, some of those are a little bizarre.
Also, TN Arcanist but LN Wizard?
Um... I would imagine there are MORE evil clerics than wizards. Wizards are already rare. Also they tend to be more neutral than anything. Remember, there are ALOT of evil dieties... and each one has clerics... not justvthe standard gods but you also cannot forget things like demon princes, the 4 horsemen, and the elder gods and Cthulhu... oh and Rovagug...
Interestingly the outer planes are the reverse of this situation, with celestial having more power per HD but the fiends are more numerous
Monk: LE
Alchemist: NE
Cavalier: LE
Gunslinger: CE
Inquisitor: CE
Magus: LE
Samurai: LEWut
I'll take that as an invitation to explain. The question was based on how each class seems flavored, so I went by what I think of as the archetypal example of that class.
Monk: LE
A monk's concept to me is that of a cloistered person with a high level of discipline and an easy life. They have a set of morals that they live by, but they lack empathy due to their lives being subsumed by intense and vigorous dedication to physical tasks and a spiritual "greater good".
Alchemist: NE
To me the archetypal alchemist is the mad scientist archetype. They have a method, but it changes to suit their needs. They have experiments, but they already predefined results that they want to acquire. They are entirely focused on some personal endeavor and give little value to other people except as they might further their alchemy.
Cavalier: LE
To me, the archetypal cavalier is a sneering noble who wants only to use his codes and adherence to them to advance social rank. He'll happily break his code to serve his desires so long as he doesn't lose face to his superiors.
Gunslinger: CE
A gunslinger is a madman that has devoted his entire like to mastering a destructive tool who's only purpose is to kill people. Whether he wears his selfish bloodlust on his sleeve or keeps it under the hat, he seems to be set up to do only one thing: Murder other people.
Inquisitor: CE
An inquisitor is similar to both the alchemist, cavalier and gunslinger. They have a code and doctrine that they are devoted to, and they're obsessed with killing people who fall outside of that code, whether or not the people actually violated their code makes no difference the code is just a tool in order to vent their hatred onto other people.
Magus: LE
A magus is quintessentially a master of arcane magic and weaponry. They are focused, disciplined and have practiced for years. Rather than the maliciousness that might come from a Cavalier's noble roots or the lack of empathy caused by a monk's isolation they are more of the uncaring type. They see people as merit based entities, who don't have any intrinsic value beyond their capabilities.
Samurai: LE
See Cavalier.
Yeah, some of those are a little bizarre.
Also, TN Arcanist but LN Wizard?
Sure, I can explain that one.
Wizard: LN
The Wizard is devoted to their craft which I see as essentially a science. They likely have a fairly rigorous code of ethics on how they handle advancing their craft and were taught in a prestigious school where they had enough peers to learn empathy but no greater calling to 'do good'.
Arcanist: TN
An arcanist on the other hand already have sorcerous power, they weaved their magic like an art at a young age and only took to further learning of it's more rigorous application in early life, because of this they tend to be more free spirited and willing to mix art and science when it comes to their magic, translating into a less lawful alignment.
I'd think that a Monk would be LN because they are detached. Sure, they may not have any special empathy, but as a monk, they are supposed to be contemplative and self-reflective rather than self-serving. I see monks as people more likely to step away from a problem rather than attempt to correct it (LG) or exploit it for personal gain (LE).
No, I agree. Based on how interrupt the alignment system (when I use it at all) ignoring the blight of people is just as evil as actively getting involved to exploit it.
For Alchemists, I'd put them on CN or CE. I mean, seriously, sneak attacks and/or bomb-throwing? Regular use (and abuse) of mind and body-altering chemicals? That doesn't sound like something a sane person regularly does.
Insane doesn't always equate to chaotic, and while I will say that those are chaotic things, the steps taken to get to that (rigorous alchemist knowledge) falls more into the category of structured law in my eyes. A valid interpretation nonetheless.
Samurai I'd put as LN. I'd see them as people who hold honor and the law higher than themselves and their own lives. Recall that this class is based off of people who were known to commit seppuku.
Historically Samurai were extremely backstabbing convincing nobles, with the whole "honor" part just as rare as it was among European knights. Plus I view the "honor suicide" as an innately evil tradition. So that's where my interpretation of the default samurai comes from.
I think that Gunslingers are CN. It invokes cowboys, which the most notable ones are NG or CG. However, their primary response to problems is "shoot it with a gun", which is a decidedly CE act. Additionally, the class's ability to end enemies is much more surgical than what I would expect of a truly CE class.
That's a fair interpretation, but drawn out sadism isn't something I think to be present in any class innately, plus I don't see it as a prerequisites to being CE. Further I see cowboys as generally CE or at best CN individuals unlike the common portrayals in westerns.
Inquisitors I'd see as LE, maybe NE, or at their absolute nicest, LN. They're part of an organized system of murder rather than a bunch of free-willed individuals who do it just for kicks. They justify their kills in the name of religion.
That's a perfectly valid interpretation, but I saw the default inquisitor as being similar to some of the early historical crusaders. They say they want to do the proper and holy thing, but really all they want is to fulfill their selfish bloodlust, and they would change their devotion on the spot if it spotted serving that need.
Hopefully that enlightens as to wear my point of view comes from.
Personally I feel like to many people seem to forget that something does not need to be G or E....
In fact, MOST THINGS are neither G or E... most things tend to fall and band of grey called N.
For instance, most people are actually TN in alignment. Sure they prefer good nieghbors to bad, but that less to do with some overwhelming sense of G and more to do with that G people tend to make better neighbors lol. Most people have a slight leaning toward G over E but that does not make them G aligned.
But that is just my take...
.... I think people assign evil way, way, way too easily.
That all depends on how you define it I guess. For reference for the people saying TN is the default alignment of people, in my games the default alignment of people is NG, so obviously there's some philosophical differences there. Always be aware that alignment is subjective from DM to DM and check with your DM on how they define it! For reference, this is the basic way I judge the alignments in the games I play that have them.
1. Is that character primarily selfish? If yes, they are evil. If no, they are not evil.
2. Is the character primarily selfless? If yes, they are good. If no, they are not good. If yes to both 1 and 2, they are neutral.
3. Is the character primarily seeking freedom? If yes, they are chaotic. If not, they are not chaotic.
4. Is the character primarily seeking safety? If yes, they are lawful. If not, they are not lawful. If yes to both 1 and 2, they are neutral.
Evil isn't venial. Evil is evil. Being a bit selfish doesn't make someone evil. Having a temper doesn't make someone evil.
That certainly is your opinion.
One wonders how you function in day to day life if that's your actual view on morality (aren't you being evil by playing a game that has no other purpose but your self-gratification? Do you give all your money to the homeless? All your free time doing charity work? Clearly not...).
Regardless, your assessment is nonsensical in at least one way. to be Neutral, one must be "primarily" two polar opposite things?
Something cannot be primarily more than one thing at a time.
Minding your business without undeservedly hurting others is exquisitely Neutral
One wonders how you function in day to day life if that's your actual view on morality(aren't you being evil by playing a game that has no other purpose but your self-gratification? Do you give all your money to the homeless? All your free time doing charity work? Clearly not...).
No. No. No. To all of your questions, but to imagine a real person doing soley good or soley evil action is nonsensical in my worldview. Also this is officially off topic.
Regardless, your assessment is nonsensical in at least one way. to be Neutral, one must be "primarily" two polar opposite things?
No, the statement on if you answered "yes to both questions you are neutral" is there to eliminate out liars, and while it would be very odd for someone to answer yes for the first two questions it would be a lot less off for them to answer yes to the second two. The questions assume that unless otherwise state you are neutral, which is why they don't account for "No + No" possibilities.
One wonders how you function in day to day life if that's your actual view on morality (aren't you being evil by playing a game that has no other purpose but your self-gratification? Do you give all your money to the homeless? All your free time doing charity work? Clearly not...).
Regardless, your assessment is nonsensical in at least one way. to be Neutral, one must be "primarily" two polar opposite things?
Something cannot be primarily more than one thing at a time.
Indeed. It seems that he believes that if we translate alignment into reality, that anyone who doesn't join the peace corp and hop over to help the third-world is evil.
But then states that the natural alignment in his setting is NG? How is that possible, when his interpretation of people is default instant NE?
I've corrected the gendering in the following quotes.
Indeed. It seems that she believes that if we translate alignment into reality, that anyone who doesn't join the peace corp and hop over to help the third-world is evil.
This isn't really a thread about discussing my worldview. I'm offering it because everyone defines good and evil differently. That said, if the logical conclusion was "you most always do the most selfless act ever" then every should be working in order to advance research in hopes of preventing the various death of the universe scenarios, but that isn't the logical conclusion of my statements.
But then states that the natural alignment in her setting is NG? How is that possible, when her interpretation of people is default instant NE?
You might want to explore this link, but if you choose not to an easy way to sum it up is. "Your interpretation of people's natural condition does not fit into my worldview, so your assumptions are the cause of the seeming paradox."
Again, alignment is a game mechanic, it's a skeleton framework on which to build a fictional character's personality and a mechanic for certain powers and effects in said game. It's not really suited to the complexities of real world life..... I think people assign evil way, way, way too easily.That all depends on how you define it I guess. For reference for the people saying TN is the default alignment of people, in my games the default alignment of people is NG, so obviously there's some philosophical differences there. Always be aware that alignment is subjective from DM to DM and check with your DM on how they define it! For reference, this is the basic way I judge the alignments in the games I play that have them.
1. Is that character primarily selfish? If yes, they are evil. If no, they are not evil.
2. Is the character primarily selfless? If yes, they are good. If no, they are not good. If yes to both 1 and 2, they are neutral.
3. Is the character primarily seeking freedom? If yes, they are chaotic. If not, they are not chaotic.
4. Is the character primarily seeking safety? If yes, they are lawful. If not, they are not lawful. If yes to both 1 and 2, they are neutral.
I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to my post or the thread in general. This isn't a "every class has an alignment restriction" thread, it's just as fun "What do you think the mechanics/concept of this class suggest for alignment?"
Like I said, most don't "suggest" anything save for the specific examples I named. Being a Fighter, or Wizard, doesn't suggest much, being a Rogue however does suggest that you're not particurlarly law-abiding, but nothing more than that.I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to my post or the thread in general. This isn't a "every class has an alignment restriction" thread, it's just as fun "What do you think the mechanics/concept of this class suggest for alignment?"Again, alignment is a game mechanic, it's a skeleton framework on which to build a fictional character's personality and a mechanic for certain powers and effects in said game. It's not really suited to the complexities of real world life..... I think people assign evil way, way, way too easily.That all depends on how you define it I guess. For reference for the people saying TN is the default alignment of people, in my games the default alignment of people is NG, so obviously there's some philosophical differences there. Always be aware that alignment is subjective from DM to DM and check with your DM on how they define it! For reference, this is the basic way I judge the alignments in the games I play that have them.
1. Is that character primarily selfish? If yes, they are evil. If no, they are not evil.
2. Is the character primarily selfless? If yes, they are good. If no, they are not good. If yes to both 1 and 2, they are neutral.
3. Is the character primarily seeking freedom? If yes, they are chaotic. If not, they are not chaotic.
4. Is the character primarily seeking safety? If yes, they are lawful. If not, they are not lawful. If yes to both 1 and 2, they are neutral.
Even that is kinda meh, because rogues can also be law abiding, just not very man-code- abiding. Groin shots? No prob. Eye jabs? Sure lol.
Idk, you guys are odd with your bro code and man code and wh a t evs
Monk: LE
Alchemist: NE
Cavalier: LE
Gunslinger: CE
Inquisitor: CE
Magus: LE
Samurai: LEWut
I'll take that as an invitation to explain. The question was based on how each class seems flavored, so I went by what I think of as the archetypal example of that class.
Monk: LE
A monk's concept to me is that of a cloistered person with a high level of discipline and an easy life. They have a set of morals that they live by, but they lack empathy due to their lives being subsumed by intense and vigorous dedication to physical tasks and a spiritual "greater good".Alchemist: NE
To me the archetypal alchemist is the mad scientist archetype. They have a method, but it changes to suit their needs. They have experiments, but they already predefined results that they want to acquire. They are entirely focused on some personal endeavor and give little value to other people except as they might further their alchemy.Cavalier: LE
To me, the archetypal cavalier is a sneering noble who wants only to use his codes and adherence to them to advance social rank. He'll happily break his code to serve his desires so long as he doesn't lose face to his superiors.Gunslinger: CE
A gunslinger is a madman that has devoted his entire like to mastering a destructive tool who's only purpose is to kill people. Whether he wears his selfish bloodlust on his sleeve or keeps it under the hat, he seems to be set up to do only one thing: Murder other people.Inquisitor: CE
An inquisitor is similar to both the alchemist, cavalier and gunslinger. They have a code and doctrine that they are devoted to, and they're obsessed with killing people who fall outside of that code, whether or not the people actually violated their code makes no difference the code is just a tool in order to vent their hatred onto other people.Magus: LE
A magus is quintessentially a master of arcane magic and weaponry. They are focused, disciplined and have practiced for years. Rather than the...
Not sure I can agree with a lot of that
Gunslinger- "oh, let me treat those orphan's wounds with my medical greatsword!" Seriously, that is just an antigun bias when we are discussing a game that generally goes for glorious battles. The logic stated just doesn't carry through since that would carry over to every single martial class. Guns are simply efficient- well suited for saving princesses from dragons (yay terrible touch AC!), which is kinda important since THIS IS A WORLD WITH FREAKIN' DRAGONS, GIANTS, AND OTHER BEASTS RESISTANT TO MELEE BY SHEER SIZE. So wanting to use guns is something that is fairly justifiable in a world where they just happen to be the best weapons against city destroying monsters, and as such gun research seems fairly neutral (particularly when you already have sorcerers and wizards blasting around with spells that technically countn as WMDs even before you get to 5th level spells; spells that Alkenstar did not have access to since magic works weird in the mana wastes- thus guns were preferred). So I would be more inclined for the lone gunslinger bringing peace to a small town image.
Inquisitor- ...I am not going to argue evil here (they are named after a group well known for doing terrible things 'for the greater good' here). I question the chaotic part- they dogmatically follow codes and such. I would be much more inclined to say LE.
Samurai- you put them as LE, but you put ninjas as LN. We obviously did not watch the same action movies in the 80's. A very typical image would be the lone swordsman facing off against a dozen assassins to protect his lord. Even if you take a 'nobles are evil' stance, it is questionable how you let the ninjas slip by with the whole 'asssassination' and 'espionage' thing.
Yeah, I don't see anything in reasoning for the Gunslinger being evil that wouldn't apply to any other martial character. I mean, what's the difference between a gunslinger who trains to be really good with a gun versus a fighter training to be a master swordsman, or a ranger who's really good with his bow?
Yeah, I don't see anything in reasoning for the Gunslinger being evil that wouldn't apply to any other martial character. I mean, what's the difference between a gunslinger who trains to be really good with a gun versus a fighter training to be a master swordsman, or a ranger who's really good with his bow?
Guns are inherently evil. /s
Guns are evil!
Guns kill people!!
Petitions to ban guns in Golarian*
Next we need to ban sugary foods :p
/Sarcasm
Yeah, I don't see anything in reasoning for the Gunslinger being evil that wouldn't apply to any other martial character. I mean, what's the difference between a gunslinger who trains to be really good with a gun versus a fighter training to be a master swordsman, or a ranger who's really good with his bow?Guns are inherently evil. /s
Only scary-looking assault weapons. Ban shoulder things that go up!
Guns are evil!
Guns kill people!!
Petitions to ban guns in Golarian*
Next we need to ban sugary foods :p
/Sarcasm
...if it is the old roman style, it might be a good idea. They made sugar by boiling down fruit....in lead pots... Yeah... and it cost a lot obviously, so only the rich could get sugar... which just explains SOOOO much about Rome, doesn't it?
Only scary-looking assault weapons. Ban shoulder things that go up!Yeah, I don't see anything in reasoning for the Gunslinger being evil that wouldn't apply to any other martial character. I mean, what's the difference between a gunslinger who trains to be really good with a gun versus a fighter training to be a master swordsman, or a ranger who's really good with his bow?Guns are inherently evil. /s
I say we should ban artilliary weapons. They are kinda a different dimension from conventional melee weapons, and even bows (and even small arms, to a certain extent).
Surprisingly, despite our long history of violence, the common human is rather reluctant to kill another person. It takes a lot of training and conditioning to get over that to a sufficent amount... and that can be a problem since that training takes time, money, and experts (all of which you might lack in a war).
But artilliary... you can kill dozens of people with a single shot, and they are so far away they might as well be ants. So it is much, much easier to wipe people out when you never get close enough to think of them as people.
I only see six classes where you can have a 'default' alignment.
Paladin and Antipaladin are only allowed one.
Clerics are focused on their god.
Druids cluster around neutral in some flavour.
Monks must be lawful, but can spread evenly around good/neutral/evil.
Commoners are ... well, neutral to the point of being background rabble.
'Nonlawful' as an alignment restriction isn't enough to push barbarians into one slot. CN may be the stereotype, but there's nothing in the flavour to shy one away from, say, NG. Same with the rest.
I think the majority of people here are missing the entire point of the thread. This is an "what should be the alignment requirements" question like many seem to be responding to.
Many people are answering that they think your particular sorting criterion for putting things into the category of 'evil' seem rather skewed.
Which is also somewhat off topic to extremely off topic depending on the post. I'm surprised and disappointed that I'm the only one who submitted a complete list.