|
What about characters that have aligned auras as one of their class features?I'm not sure how it's relevant. Auras are a sign of their faith in a specifically aligned deity rather than a reflection of their own alignment, and I'd place deities squarely in the "Outsider" camp. Even if some of them were mortals once :-P
For Clerics yes. Other classes have them based off their alignment.
Please make alignment fully optional in Starfinder. In other words, do not make classes that require a certain alignment (they can still follow a code of behavior), do not make spells that function based off of alignment (instead use friend/foe).
The alignment system is a net negative. It creates more arguments at the table than anything it offers in return. It's an unsolvable problem because, as any forum post on the topic demonstrates, we each have widely differing opinions of what good, evil, lawful and chaotic mean and where each begins and ends. Its a part of the game that doesn't need to be there.
Thank you!
Here's my take. I personally love the alignment system, but I know folks often don't. I hope the developers take the opportunity they have here to just snip out the mechanics that deal with alignment and keep it around as a purely flavor part of the setting.
You have planes that resonate with forces of good or chaos (maybe in more science-fictiony language even to fit with the tone of the new game, like how the term "axiomatic" gets used for lawful--I'd love that). That way you keep the guys like me who like alignment happy enough, and the folks that'd be happier without it don't have to deal with the hassle and fights it causes at their tables.
|
|
For Clerics yes. Other classes have them based off their alignment.What about characters that have aligned auras as one of their class features?I'm not sure how it's relevant. Auras are a sign of their faith in a specifically aligned deity rather than a reflection of their own alignment, and I'd place deities squarely in the "Outsider" camp. Even if some of them were mortals once :-P
I was unaware of that. What classes would those be so I can know for future reference and NOT make an ass of myself like I just did? :-P
|
|
I was unaware of that. What classes would those be so I can know for future reference and NOT make an ass of myself like I just did? :-PFor Clerics yes. Other classes have them based off their alignment.What about characters that have aligned auras as one of their class features?I'm not sure how it's relevant. Auras are a sign of their faith in a specifically aligned deity rather than a reflection of their own alignment, and I'd place deities squarely in the "Outsider" camp. Even if some of them were mortals once :-P
No worries :3
There's Paladin/Antipaladin for the classes, and then there's prestige classes (Magaambyan Arcanist for example), and also archetypes I believe
Paladin/Antipaladin auras aren't quite reflective of their alignment - they don't include the Law/Chaos component at all.
Paladin/Antipaladin auras aren't quite reflective of their alignment - they don't include the Law/Chaos component at all.Actually they are, since Paladins have to be Good and Antipaladins have to be Evil. The Gray Paladin archetype can be LN but it trades out the Aura of Good class ability anyway.
What I meant is that Paladins, being LG, only get a G aura, but not an L one. Similarly for Antipaladins. Thus, it's not truly reflective of their alignment, but much rather of their role.
|
|
What I meant is that Paladins, being LG, only get a G aura, but not an L one. Similarly for Antipaladins. Thus, it's not truly reflective of their alignment, but much rather of their role.Paladin/Antipaladin auras aren't quite reflective of their alignment - they don't include the Law/Chaos component at all.Actually they are, since Paladins have to be Good and Antipaladins have to be Evil. The Gray Paladin archetype can be LN but it trades out the Aura of Good class ability anyway.
... okay?
He may or may not have the ability (or merely just the inclination) to use Force Lightning on his own. But what we do know he does have is the ability to take an incoming Force Lightning and negate it or redirect it. And even if he redirects it, he has 360 degrees by 360 degrees of directions to send it, only one of which is occupied by a living person. And once he's taken that Force Lightning (regardless of who originally created it) and attempted to use that power to harm another, then why is he not just as culpable as if he'd created it his own self?
Because there are extenuating circumstances to that event. We are allowed to recognize that Yoda's target is a Sith Lord, who requires nothing, literally nothing, be left on the table in order to defeat, and so Yoda gets to use Force Lightning and still be good.
Sorry for being late in answer.
No.it's because generating Force Lightning is evil, deflecting energy is not. It's not relevant what he is doing (save an orphan, or killing him) as that is a different issue.
You have not addressed my quote, from Darth Plagueis. Just GENERATING the lightning requires that you have a thirst for power, a lack of compassion, snd acceptancec of the consequences of gathering power. Requires being evil, bassically. It doesnt matter if you are trying to use it to save a princess kidnapped by a dragon (or an evil turtle). If you don't have that thirst and lack of compassion, you can't generate it.
OTOH, deflecting energy is a different power, that require a different mental state. Probably needs you to be calm, and focused, or whatever. Yoda CAN do those things. What he can't do is to generate force lightning, because he has compassion, and does not have thirst for power.
This is like using Blasphemy or unholy word vs using Spell Turning. Or using animate dead vs using control undead. And is a great example of alignment attached to mechanics.
{. . .}
You have not addressed my quote, from Darth Plagueis.
{. . .}
Consider the source. Of course Darth Plagueis would want you to believe that certain things just can't be done without the Dark Side. To use Force Lightning, Yoda might have to jump through hoops equivalent to using a Miracle or Wish to duplicate a normally forbidden spell, but as we have seen, Yoda could probably jump through hoops just fine while in combat.
After all, what are Jedi going to do if a friend has a heart attack and they are stuck without a working defibrillator? Can't let the Sith have the monopoly on the obvious solution to that . . . .
{. . .}
You have not addressed my quote, from Darth Plagueis.
{. . .}Consider the source. Of course Darth Plagueis would want you to believe that certain things just can't be done without the Dark Side. To use Force Lightning, Yoda might have to jump through hoops equivalent to using a Miracle or Wish to duplicate a normally forbidden spell, but as we have seen, Yoda could probably jump through hoops just fine while in combat.
After all, what are Jedi going to do if a friend has a heart attack and they are stuck without a working defibrillator? Can't let the Sith have the monopoly on the obvious solution to that . . . .
I think you are just doing acrobatics around the issue.
Yes, just like With Spell Turning redirecting back an Evil Spell, you would use a Wish to get an evil effect. Same thing in Pathfinder, you would Wish for Animate Dead
But the Spell being copied is still evil. In SW lore, needs you to be Evil or being trained as such, becsuse beyobd the mechanic (ie: 10d6 lightning damage) there is a fluff, a lore. You need to reject compassion to project that power. Just like to animate dead, you need to tie souls to dead bodies and such thing is evil. You would get similar or better mechanical effects in different wys (such as a force push that does 10d6 damage, or animate object for more HD). But this is a RPG, and background, story, and lore matter.
Animate Dead us evil,Sith zpowers are evil. If you want those powers just make an evil character, it's legal. Truth be told, if your character thinks that "ends justify means" and aninating undead or summoning devils is OK if you do it for the right cause, "evil" is the alignment you should be playing anyeays per PF terms.
^Well, that depends. Are Jedi more like Space Wizards (a tally more like Kineticists), or more like Clerics?
I'm with others in this thread: I'm cool with alignment sticking around as a way of quickly describing a character, but I would very much like to see all mechanical elements related to it are removed.
While fantasy is flooded with good vs evil stories, there is far less of them for in science fiction. The biggest sf franchise to have good vs evil is Star Wars, and even then, I can think of only one force power not used by anyone on the good side: force lightning. Beyond that there was no other mechanical benefit to any alignment. Mind you, the last Star Wars RPG I played was WEG d6.
Given that Starfinder is going to be made as Pathfinder compatible. I really doubt that you're going to get that kind of major change. You'll simply have to do the work yourself using the tools for this found in Pathfinder Unchained!
^Well, that depends. Are Jedi more like Space Wizards (a tally more like Kineticists), or more like Clerics?
Like monks
Given that Starfinder is going to be made as Pathfinder compatible. I really doubt that you're going to get that kind of major change.
That is my expectation, but one can hope.
Like monks^Well, that depends. Are Jedi more like Space Wizards (actually more like Kineticists), or more like Clerics?
Uh oh. Does this mean that they are going to combine the disadvantages of both?