The title says it all. Do you force all barbarians to be nonlawful? All monks to be lawful? Is there no such thing as a paladin with a temper, like an 8-Bit Theater-style Berserker?
In case you can't tell, I don't really care for the limits. Nothing about the monk to me implies a necessarily lawful alignment, and I feel like the "Any neutral" clause is just a holdover from when the True Neutral alignment was more-or-less the most psychotic alignment in the game and basically was a religion unto itself. Nowadays, with "Neutral" pretty much just meaning "yeah whatever", a druid who wants to watch the (civilized) world burn just makes more sense as Chaotic Evil than Neutral Evil/Chaotic Neutral.
Any thoughts? I don't feel too strongly about this, aside from my previously mentioned bitterness at the nixing of my "paladin with an anger problem" build concept a little while back. ;P
Oh, and aside from discussions on whether they are compatible with druids and barbarians, let's not get into paladins, guys. I know people have ideas about "Chaotic" paladins and the sort, but this isn't the thread for it. Clerics and inquisitors, too, must keep out, unless you want to convince us that your Drunken Master/Inquisitor of Cayden Cailean should be allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hasn't cime up yet in my PF campaign, but back in 3.5 the only alignment restritions were for deity compatibility for divine types. Monks must be disciplined, but I don't see that a belief in freedom (chaotic aligned) means you can't have self discipline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We just don't use alignment as written. It is reserved to outsiders and folk directly connected to them, like clerics and, yes, paladins. Every one else considered neutral as far as magical effects go and judged by their deeds and reputation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't removed the alignment requirements, but I give my players a very, very wide latitude in deciding what their characters alignment means. It's also worth to keep in mind that, barring Paladins, no class is banned from performing individual acts that contradict their alignment, it only becomes time to shift once contradiction becomes the norm instead of the exception.
Hasn't cime up yet in my PF campaign, but back in 3.5 the only alignment restritions were for deity compatibility for divine types. Monks must be disciplined
And honestly, I'm not sure why. Ninjas get ki just the same without any of that "discipline". And wizards and psychics need discipline, too—they're still allowed to be Chaotic if they please.
|
I strongly dislike the alignment restrictions, for the occasional home game that I run, I pretty much remove them completely (Paladin's are still required to be good aligned, or at least have a darn good backstory reason for why they are a Paladin).
For other games, I usually just ask if it's cool to ignore the restrictions for backstory reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even use alignments at all.
I DO, however, tell my players that I will form a mental picture of their character's alignments based on how they roleplay that character. And if they play a class that has alignment restrictions, I want them to PLAY in that fashion or pick a different class. Or, alternatively, give me a reason at character creation to allow them to break the mold, preferably one that comes with good roleplay value, and then I won't even care about them playing the class-restricted alignments, but I will hope they stick to their initial reason (or find an in-game reason for that to change later).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I don't play with the kind of players who appeal to the GM when they think other players are playing their alignment incorrectly. That's probably the key element.
I take alignment as a challenge.
I take what I want to do, and try to justify it via the thought processes I associates with an alignment.
Say I work with a lawful (non-evil) monk- how can I justify them being a criminal? How could I also justify fighting criminals? (warning, getting a bit free flow here- can't say I'd blame anyone for calling it junk)
Then I half remember a discussion about karma I have heard, and associate it with roles (like in plays)- if one is in the role of a hero, then they must fight villains; if one has made themself a villain, it is their role to use their power to take what they want and to resist heroes.
What happens when one abandon's their role? The champion disappoints those around him, getting shunned; the villain, who cannot get what he needs (since no one wants to help someone that has done such evil; he could well starve) and if he stops resisting then the heroes catch him with ease. Thus, that is their karma- they have a role and fail it, you face consequences. You can shift roles...but again, you face consequences and prices- a hero could betray trust and turn into a villain, living on the run; a villain could redeem themselves by going through a great struggle to attain the role of a hero by gaining the respect of those that hate him.
And then you have a thief. If one decides to become a thief, they either need to escape/fight off pursuers, or they must get caught. And living a life where you constantly look over your shoulder, waiting for the day a guard or bounty hunter comes... it can be as stressful as getting caught at times. And if you look at the River Freedoms, they respect a robber, a thief that faces his victims directly and gives them ways to resist, to a burglar, who sneaks in when all are away so he meets no resistance in his crime.
Now, I have a philosophy that could get a lawful monk that has a deep respect for the beliefs of the River Kingdoms. Now I have interesting ways to look at the character.
I have thus made a creed - a creed of roles, that asks that you be honest with who you are; a creed that despises hypocrites who lies to make themselves look better or feel better. A creed that praises a bandit that admits what he is an accept that one day he will be taken down; a creed the villifies a "protector" that raids and pillages "for the greater good".
Thus, you have a lawful character that can laugh and smile with a bandit when they fight as bounty hunter and criminal. You have someone that willingly takes up the mantle of rebel to fight the king's army.
So overall.... I like practicing mental gymnastics. It can be a good way to play around with your original concept and flesh it out. Am I using some arbitrary restrictions? Absolutely...but working around them helped me actually think about my character's beliefs and thoughts. That initial kick can be important for a lot of people to make a living character. Ask not what act a LG paladin should do, but how can one be a LG paladin while doing this act.
The whole "mental gymnastics/just be the alignment you want" philosophy would work just fine with me if it weren't for the fact that a large number of classes end up downright incompatible because of the restrictions. I'd be happy to be applying my gymnastics to working out how a Monk/Inquisitor of Calistria came to be.
Other than preventing multiclassing between alignment incompatible classes, no not really.
No. The restrictions for those three classes especially is pretty pointless. It doesn't mesh with their flavor, it doesn't mesh with their mechanics, so the only reason it exists is backwards compatibility...because apparently changing that would break it somehow.
Paladin at least fits the latter (though I allow players to come up with other alignments and specific Codes for Paladins and Anti-Paladins in my game).
Is there no such thing as a paladin with a temper?
Since when does Lawful mean you don't have normal emotions?
I've learned that I can justify practically any behaviour as lawful or chaotic. This means that lawful / chaotic alignment restrictions are only a problem if I want to dip into Barbarian.
We play alignments pretty loosely at our table... it pretty much comes down to good/evil.
Paladins do have codes, but we don't focus too much on it (as long as they aren't whoring around/burning down orphanages, it's pretty much okay).
I don't really get people who fixate on singular details like alignment... I played a monk who liked to play practical jokes (first time leaving the monastery, he just wanted to have a little fun) and the GM tried to force an alignment change on him, from LG to CG.
It was stupid, took up a lot of time arguing the point, resulted in me no longer being able to progress the character as a Monk, and then I left the game (the GM was an idiot, this is just one example among many).
I remove alignment all together, so don't have to deal with stuff like alignment restrictions.
I allow paladins to be Lawful-, Neutral-, or Chaotic-Good.
And I let Barbarians be any alignment. Chaotic fits, but doesn't have to be a requirement. (So they don't need to fear losing their class skills for committing a "lawful" act.)
Monks, similar. Lawful fits, but doesn't have to be restrictive.
It can be hard enough to debate Good vs Evil acts without the additional blurred lines between Lawful and Chaotic. Some seem clear, but most are a grey area.
The title says it all. Do you force all barbarians to be nonlawful? All monks to be lawful? Is there no such thing as a paladin with a temper, like an 8-Bit Theater-style Berserker?
In case you can't tell, I don't really care for the limits.
There's nothing wrong with a paladin with a temper, any more than there's something wrong with a paladin who drinks.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."
Even a character who breaks his word occasionally doesn't stop being lawful, he's just not very good at lawful and probably feels very badly about it when he stops and reflects on his actions.
I (as a GM) ignore barbarian and monk alignment restrictions. Druids still have to be partly neutral and paladins need to be lawful good (but I am open to possibility of other alignment variants). I see the paladin code a more important factor than the alignment itself for paladins.
I've ignored it so far, and I am considering removing all alignment mechanics altogether, leaving alignment only as flavor text.
IMO, it is called role-playing for a reason. You chose the role, so play it to the requirements. Doesn't mean you call them on it every single little deviance, but if it is significant, you bet the consequences will arrive in force.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't enforce alignment restriction on any class when I GM.
IMO, it is called role-playing for a reason. You chose the role, so play it to the requirements. Doesn't mean you call them on it every single little deviance, but if it is significant, you bet the consequences will arrive in force.
you can roleplay without having to adhere to game-mechanical alignment restrictions. A monk doesn't have to be lawful to practice a personal discipline of body and mind.
I haven't removed the alignment requirements, but I give my players a very, very wide latitude in deciding what their characters alignment means.
How I've always run it in games I GMed. Let the players make and play the characters they want to, and don't get picky about what their alignment is unless they're grossly violating it (like a Lawful Good guy selling the souls of orphans to a demon).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
a Lawful Good guy selling the souls of orphans to a demon.
It's to fund a retirement home!
|
Nope, I used to be very concerned about alignment restrictions but now I see them as suggestions.
A Druid I would say should be within an alignment step of the nature deity like a cleric. The nature deity is usually neutral.
What about settings with multiple nature deities?
In my current setting there's an Artemis-like TN huntress, a NG earth mother, and a CN animal trickster just in the core pantheon.
In Golarion, while most people think of Gozreh as "the nature deity" Erastil is very concerned with nature (offering the Animal and Plant domains). There are also a number of minor divinities with appropriate portfolios, including the demon lord of fungus and parasites, Cyth-V'Sug (Plant and Earth), the infernal duke Alocer "the Pack Lord" (Animal), and the CG elven god of the hunt, Ketephys (Animal, Plant, and Weather).
Since you can find nature deities of every alignment, it seems reasonable to allow druids of every alignment, even if they don't follow a particular deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get really alignment for barbarians and druids. A druid could be lawful and interested in studying or worshipping the underlying math in nature, or be interested in the chaotic patterns associated with weather or ecosystem dynamics.
Barbarian seems weird, just because a Barbarian tribe probably isn't a free for all, but the tribe would have it owns taboos and social codes. So I don't see why you couldn't be lawful.
Monks I kind of get. Since a huge chunk of monk flavor is the idea of self-discipline and ascetic lifestyle. So I kind of get the monk flavor, although it sort of doesn't fit some monk style characters, like the drunken monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate how alignment works in Pathfinder. I'd love to remove it. However, it's tied so tightly into the game system that you really can't without making huge changes. So, yes, I keep the restrictions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do keep alignment, but I have a very specific interpretation that only relates Law to civic laws. I've stated many time that every single person of any alignment has a personal code and to be any sort of adventurer you have to be disciplined. (Screw that monk justification.)
So Paladins do remain Lawful Good for me - they should respect legitimate authority and always look for opportunities to work within the framework of the law if it is possible.
However, if a player wanted her Paladin to be neutral good, I wouldn't flip the table over it.
Druids have the single most pointless alignment restriction in the game. At least Barbarians and Monks have a justification. The Druid restriction is just dumb. I squash that.
That being said, justification or no, I still don't enforce the Monk or Barbarian alignments. Barbarian tribes definitely have laws (ones I suspect are usually enforced by death or exile, what with the lack of prisons and all) - for that matter, I could see the tribal lifestyle being VERY traditionalist and with very specific protocol and etiquette, particularly when dealing with elders of spiritual leaders.
And I could see a Monk whose 'discipline' is unpredictability and natural talent, who bucks tradition and flouts expectations.
The title says it all. Do you force all barbarians to be nonlawful? All monks to be lawful? Is there no such thing as a paladin with a temper, like an 8-Bit Theater-style Berserker?
In case you can't tell, I don't really care for the limits. Nothing about the monk to me implies a necessarily lawful alignment, and I feel like the "Any neutral" clause is just a holdover from when the True Neutral alignment was more-or-less the most psychotic alignment in the game and basically was a religion unto itself. Nowadays, with "Neutral" pretty much just meaning "yeah whatever", a druid who wants to watch the (civilized) world burn just makes more sense as Chaotic Evil than Neutral Evil/Chaotic Neutral.
Yes.
However, there are usually options that allow a player to get something "close" to most concepts:
Paladin berserker? Use Unsanctioned Knowledge to add rage (2nd-level bard spell) to your spell list.
Non-lawful monk? There are the brawler class and the unarmed fighter, martial artist monk, sacred fist warpriest, and even esoteric magus archetypes (plus probably a couple more that I am missing).
Chaotic Evil "druid?" Some demon lords (Aldinach, Angazhan, Baphomet, Cyth-V'sug, Jezelda, Mazmezz) grant access to Animal and/or Plant domains to their clerics; alternately, a Nature oracle has no alignment restrictions.