The measure of a game mechanic is not how it fails with munchkin players or malicious DMs. Because you can't design a game to cushion against those who are determined to abuse it.
Fact of the matter is, there are gamers and groups who function well with alignment or it would not have endured for 4 decades.
I've argued alignment with DMs that I don't think are malicious. And as a DM I've argued alignment with players who I don't think are munchkins. We just have a difference of opinion, but it's one with major consequences for story and setting on top of character mechanics.
Alignment has been kept going in large part by grognards (look at the vitriol surrounding 4e's changes to it), and I'm all but convinced that the groups it "works" in are groups that agree to handwave any alignment dilemmas that arise. This is, of course, a sign of a non-dysfunctional group but the fact that there is something for them to handwave away is telling.
I fear that the inability to involve alignment without resorting to just waiving the repercussions might be a telling sign of a dysfunction in and of itself...
Ah, but is someone who makes sweeping generalizations not Chaotic because they don't follow a rigorous application of logic? After all, it is a non-sequitur to say that "some X are Y, therefore all X are Y". And they might not necessarily be evil, if their only fault is (what amounts to) intellectual carelessness.
No, its Lawful because I follow a set pattern of thinking without stopping to consider the little squabbling of someone who 'thinks' what Lawful means, and as a final ditch effort tries to twist the words of another to fit their own scheme. Why faulter through my ways when you're picking at straws to twist my words when you know their right? :)
a Demon that follows its own laws is backstabbing and self-destructive.
A Devil on the other hand keeps to its agreements. They both follow "laws" of their people.Hellknights believe in Law and order above all else, and that results in Good for Society.
Youre getting into the area of Order Vs Law. Laws can view all over the place. You could have laws that eating meat on certain days is worthy of being executed.
Alice in Wonderland had so many laws that make sense to nobody from a linear world.
If you want to be THAT nitpicky about it, Lawful in Pathfinder = Order. Demons have no laws, no patterns, nothing that would set them aside as lawful. They do what they please, when they please, with no principles or patterns or any form of tenets. They could steal from a Baker to eat because they were hungry just as they might be willing to kill a criminal because "its fun". There is no Law for a chaotic evil demon, only "you're stronger than me, I won't make trouble with you". Unless you're a Joker, then "You're stronger than me... PIE IN YOUR FACE!"
No one can be 100% Lawful due to contradiction of laws. If X city was legal to have slaves, but Y city made it illegal to have slaves, and you were born in X city, are you unlawful for following Y City's laws? Because as soon as you follow Y city's laws, you're now unlawful with X city and loss lawfulness because of it.
Law CANNOT be judged by the law of the land. It has to be judged by the patterns orchestrated through creatures. Players who are adamant that the law system is flawed and needs to be removed: Chaotic. You don't like restrictions or limitations that hold your "freedom" down, and hate having to follow tenets and rules to play classes that are designed to follow tenets and rules, and and worst belittle people as "Lawful Stupid" because of it.
That sounds more like House-ruling it to make alignment far more general. Most people here speaking about interpreting Paladins' alignment is to ignore Lawful Good and just be Good.
Really?
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
There's a lot of scope for behaviour there.
How about a vigilante who goes out at night and "deals with" people who prey upon the poor and helpless, while during the day works against the system that lets them, from within, condemning the legal system which created the society in which they live.
Or a sullen paladin who resents the duty imposed upon him but knows that if he doesn't act innocent people will suffer, but he sure doesn't have to like it, and he's not afraid to tell that to anyone who'll listen.
The ranger who is dedicated to the preservation of a forest, so he hunts loggers, but will protect travellers who fall prey to the wildlife. He's wanted by the authorities, but he's more concerned about the nymphs, centaurs, and pixies whose home is in danger.
All of these characters can be lawful good (they can also be other alignments, but can easily tick the LG boxes).
At the end of the day, alignment isn't a straitjacket, it's a two-character broad description of a character's ethical and moral stance. It shouldn't actually interfere with a player's characterisation any more than the height, weight, hair colour and eye colour should. Not even for a paladin.
Alignment is a complex system, and no two people interpret it the same. I would suggest finding an interpretation of each alignment that you find suitable and then to play characters based on your interpretation of their alignment. If you play with a GM long enough eventually your views will come into conflict, but as long as you can calmly explain why you believe W character doing X thing in Y circumstances falls under Z alignment, most reasonable people will be willing to agree to disagree. Sometimes they will not agree to disagree, and you may have to find a way of getting atonement cast on yourself in these incidents, but usually they will.
There's a lot of scope for behaviour there.
How about a vigilante who goes out at night and "deals with" people who prey upon the poor and helpless, while during the day works against the system that lets them, from within, condemning the legal system which created the society in which they live.
Or a sullen paladin who resents the duty imposed upon him but knows that if he doesn't act innocent people will suffer, but he sure doesn't have to like it, and he's not afraid to tell that to anyone who'll listen.
The ranger who is dedicated to the preservation of a forest, so he hunts loggers, but will protect travellers who fall prey to the wildlife. He's wanted by the authorities, but he's more concerned about the nymphs, centaurs, and pixies whose home is in danger.
Those are neutral or neutral good alignment. Its kind of funny that people just keeping working in some kind of neutrality into their character and still insisting that works though narrow alignment. why not just say their should not be a narrow alignment?
Most characters dont have to worry about alignment. Some do and its up to the GM whether they enforce alignment or let it slide for non-linear character development. Alignment can be a straitjacket depending on how open to the rules a GM is. That actually means a GM can be more concerned about Law than Good. Lawful neutral GMs can be harsh, so I look for Neutral/Good.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
For the Paladin, I dont know how I could play with that class as its too different for me to play as it is summarized as "Lawful Stupid".
Most people will tune out when you say Paladin are Lawful Stupid.
I believe most of us remember a Paladin player like this one I remember:
A player in a game playing a Paladin was asked to return a lost friend, but the friend says "no I don't want to go back" so the Paladin kills him and returns the body (without any of his Paladin powers because the GM said you are no longer Lawful Good.) It's not surprising the player didn't understand, he was asked to bring him back. He said no, so he brought him back.
I know you are not that player, but calling Paladin Lawful Stupid makes us think you could be.
As a GM I worry less about a character played according to one of 9 personas, but is played consistently and then judge where that character's persona and motivations would likely sit on the alignment chart.
I'm also acutely aware that the players' only interpretation of the game world is through me. So if the player states their character is going to do something that would break their character's alignment code I would advise the player, as their character would know that and allow the player the opportunity to choose a different course of action.
Sometimes the same course of action can occur through different motivations. E.g. A horde of Orcs descend on a village and start slaughtering the population. The Paladin observes this from a nearby bluff. He could rush in, kill a few orcs but ultimately will be unable to save the village and be dead in the process, or he could watch from a safe distance. He decides to watch.
If his motivation was purely self-preservation then he could be a candidate to fall (a non-good neutral act). If the motivation was it was futile to sacrifice his life when he couldn't change the outcome and he vows to avenge the villagers then he is also a candidate to fall (vengeance being a chaotic act). If his motivation was it was futile to sacrifice his life and he vows to stop the Orcs from harming other innocents and to bring them to justice for their crimes then the player has played their character well (having committed to good and lawful acts).
Those are neutral or neutral good alignment.
There's a lot of scope for behaviour there.
How about a vigilante who goes out at night and "deals with" people who prey upon the poor and helpless, while during the day works against the system that lets them, from within, condemning the legal system which created the society in which they live.
Or a sullen paladin who resents the duty imposed upon him but knows that if he doesn't act innocent people will suffer, but he sure doesn't have to like it, and he's not afraid to tell that to anyone who'll listen.
The ranger who is dedicated to the preservation of a forest, so he hunts loggers, but will protect travellers who fall prey to the wildlife. He's wanted by the authorities, but he's more concerned about the nymphs, centaurs, and pixies whose home is in danger.
What makes you say that these are neutral or neutral good, with such definiteness? Have you considered that you are interpreting the alignments much more narrowly than other people do? Neither way is wrong of course, alignment is always a matter of interpretation. But I have to wonder: how does the rest of your gaming group think about this? Would they be OK with the above examples bring labeled Lawful?
What makes you say that these are neutral or neutral good, with such definiteness? Have you considered that you are interpreting the alignments much more narrowly than other people do? Neither way is wrong of course, alignment is always a matter of interpretation. But I have to wonder: how does the rest of your gaming group think about this? Would they be OK with the above examples bring labeled Lawful?
Ok after that Im just going to ask if youve read an actual definition of "neutral"? Its pretty narrow, as it basically means not good, evil, chaotic, or orderly, or even emotional. true Neutral alignment follows actual neutral while Neutral Good means youre somewhere between Order and Chaos.
"Lawful Stupid" and "stupid Evil", (trope names by the way), are both two extremes and show faults in being the extreme.
the alignment system is by its very nature biased as it encourages "fantastic racism". "always evil" races are always evil, unless a player character makes then otherwise, so murdering Drow or Devils is alright for everyone.
a Paladin is supposed to always be good, but killing is evil(yes even demons and devils are people), so Paladins are Evil, but they are treated as good because they are convinced they are?.
"Its not wrong if I do it." President Richard Nixon was almost impeached on that Logic Failure.
Sorry but I find all these contradictions hilarious as they do not follow any kind of unbiased Logic. I could be a Lawful Monk, but a paladin would be tricky as I dislike contradictions. I wonder if the Modrons exist in pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good believes in helping people by establiahing order, that is fair and unbiased. The ends do not justify the means, and they act consistently. (Enjolras in Les Mis wants to do this, and is willing to die for it.)
Neutral Good cares for nothing but helping people, no matter how it's done. (Jean Valjean believes in redemption and merely breaks the law because he has to. He doesn't really care about establishing order, as long as he can help others. He doesn't kill in battle, he shoota helmets off to intimidate soldiers.)
Chaotic Good believes in freedom above all else. LG believes it can be found in a fair government, but CG believes that Order will infringe freedom, and is not worth it. They want to express themselves without conforming. (Gavroche hates the government and tries to inconvenience them. He helps people directly, and thinks these virtues.)
Les Miserables is credited in the CRB as inspiration, I think because of the alignments. Lot of good examples there.
One cool roleplay idea is dress. Not always the case, but lawful types want to wear uniform clothing many others have, or somethinf simple. Chaotic types want unique clothing to express their individuality.
When considering alignment, thank how you react to other alignments. LG respects LN devotion to tradition and order, but likely thinks they should follow traditions to help others.
Lawful Good believes in helping people by establiahing order, that is fair and unbiased.
Neutral Good cares for nothing but helping people, no matter how it's done.
Chaotic Good believes in freedom above all else.
1 Except that IS Bias. Its Bias towards Good and Order, but still bias.
2 That is actually spot on. Its Good without shifting too much towards Order or Chaos/Freedom
3 No, That is Chaotic Neutral. CN is the Embodiment of Freedom, not biased towards Good Or Evil.
Lawful Good is a trap. If you pick and choose laws you follow, you become Neutral-Good. Its why you can call it Lawful Stupid, as you have to follow Order on general principal. If you lie, break a deal, or dont do Good all the time you can become fallen just for being neutral. Its can be very narrow-minded. If you dont have a narrow-minded GM, then that is great. I think it was a mistake to fix classes with alignment as you will probably have to ignore them if you want to roleplay anything buck an unchanging character.
You play with your alignment and personality segregated apparently as all I keep reading is people playing Neutral-Good.
Im actually interested now in why so many people are denying it.
Lawful Good believes in helping people by establiahing order, that is fair and unbiased.
Neutral Good cares for nothing but helping people, no matter how it's done.
Chaotic Good believes in freedom above all else.
1 Except that IS Bias. Its Bias towards Good and Order, but still bias.
2 That is actually spot on. Its Good without shifting too much towards Order or Chaos/Freedom
3 No, That is Chaotic Neutral. CN is the Embodiment of Freedom, not biased towards Good Or Evil.
Lawful Good is a trap. If you pick and choose laws you follow, you become Neutral-Good. Its why you can call it Lawful Stupid, as you have to follow Order on general principal. If you lie, break a deal, or dont do Good all the time you can become fallen just for being neutral. Its can be very narrow-minded. If you dont have a narrow-minded GM, then that is great. I think it was a mistake to fix classes with alignment as you will probably have to ignore them if you want to roleplay anything buck an unchanging character.
I meant for CG freedom for others. I should have clarified. Lawful Good doesn't really pick and choose, (although the player does), normally the character is raised into a set of traditions, or is adopted by some. Upholding those traditions and using it to help others is exactly LG. A single lie, does not, an alignment change make. In fact, I consider that good roleplaying. For example, Jean Valjean has felt tremendous guilt and confusion at the Bishop's forgiveness, which steers his NG.
I like the idea that the alignment is a spectrum. For example some LG characters are pretty small in the Good spectrum, but high in the Law spectrum. Paladins are designed to be more Good then they are Lawful. They are concentrated on Good, but generally believe Law is the best tool, but not the most important means.
I think a lot of the problem with "Does the Paladin fall?" is the subjectivity and harshness of certain interpretations. I would personally reword it to make it more clear and less strict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You play with your alignment and personality segregated apparently as all I keep reading is people playing Neutral-Good.
Im actually interested now in why so many people are denying it.
Your personal interpretation of Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis is quite broad. I personally consider it a bit more narrow than that but it isn't really concrete. The Neutral alignments (usually) can't be split center. It's a spectrum, so there are more Lawful NG and more Chaotic NG, but they're not as lawful or chaotic as a member of that alignment.
As for personality and alignment, they're related, but no really that much. Any alignment can be stubborn, any alignment can be loving, any alignment can be brave or cowardly. Alignment is a small aspect that is in itself a grander theme, a core principle for the character.
All this of course is extremely subjective, so there is no one right way to really judge it.
Do you think actions outside an alignment are not cause for an alignment change?
Or in other words do you think you can you "dip" but come back into alignment without repercussions?
By the most strict definitions, no. A Lawful good character would need to "atone" for doing anything other than Law and Good, even if its not a longterm character change.
Followers of Deities are less strict as they have to remain within one alignment shift so a God of Good and Freedom will allow Good, Freedom, or Good/Freedom at the same time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I see it: Consider a line with Lawful and Chaotic on either end. We'll name ultimate lawful as 0 and ultimate chaotic as 100. The exact center is 50, which is the perfect example of Neutral.
Every character is in that line, somewhere. The pinnacle of Chaos would be at 100, while the pinnacle of Lawful would be at 0. (This would be Lawful Stupid, probably.) I think a character can be at (say) 25, and still have a lawful alignment. If that character I'd also at 25 with regards to good, he's LG in my book, and fit to be a paladin, but he's not Lawful Stupid, and he may do some things that could be considered neutral.
I have a feeling that you think a Lawful character should be at absolute 0, or maybe between 0 and 10, to have a Lawful alignment. Everything else is Neutral. Is that correct?
(Note that the same line also can be drawn between Good and Evil, to give the full spectrum of all shades of alignments.
|
Alignment is nothing but gang colors. A group has a Paladin who detects evil in a traveling group of merchants. They detect as "evil" so the party gleefully murders them and it's somehow a good act. Alignments might make sense for outsiders, but for mortal races, everyone has their good days and bad days. Sorry, defenders of D%D of yore, alignment was always stupid, and it still is.
If you think of and play alignment that way of course it is.
In actuality it isn't. Not even close.
Playing a psychotic murderhobo paladin is a VERY fast way to not be playing a paladin at all much longer.
Killing someone because they ping as evil is not a good act. Never has been, never will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with alignment is that this really isn't a rules question because alignment (even in the terms defined in the game) is very subjective mixed with a few rules-based fiats (like certain spells).
I think this is quite true.
It's also unfortunate that the game uses moral terms for concepts which clearly aren't modelling actual morality (since people get quite passionate about their moral positions).
You play with your alignment and personality segregated apparently as all I keep reading is people playing Neutral-Good.
Im actually interested now in why so many people are denying it.
If EVERYONE else in the thread keeps coming off as NG to you, perhaps your view of what NG is doesn't really mesh with how the rest of the gaming world views it, and you may want to rethink your own view?
Much of alignment is left to GM discretion. I would not change a good characters alignment for casting a single [evil] spell - probably not even a dozen despite now codified rules that a few will do. Unless of course the casting of that single spell results in the death of innocent by standers, results in the destruction of the local lawfully aligned government causing anarchy to reign in the region, or some other high impact result.
I would not make a character non-lawful for telling a single lie (a paladin player would have a problem with that still, but not LG in general). But if they make lying a habit, then we start looking at an alignment shift.
LG/CG/LE/CE are not only the extremes of that alignment, there is a broad spectrum that is available.
Do you think actions outside an alignment are not cause for an alignment change?
Or in other words do you think you can you "dip" but come back into alignment without repercussions?
By the most strict definitions, no. A Lawful good character would need to "atone" for doing anything other than Law and Good, even if its not a longterm character change.
Followers of Deities are less strict as they have to remain within one alignment shift so a God of Good and Freedom will allow Good, Freedom, or Good/Freedom at the same time.
By NO definitions is this the case. It's not in the books, it's not hinted at in the books, and unless your GM is trolling you, you won't find it in a game either.
Paladin: "I eat my breakfast."
GM: "How do you eat it?"
Paladin: "...I don't know, however a normal person eats food."
GM: "AHA! You're not eating your breakfast Lawful Goodly! Your alignment shifts to Neutral! FALL! FALL! FAAAAAALL!"
Well... I've seen people around here defending the notion that a Paladin should fall for using bow and arrow... So I wouldn't be too surprised.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how I see it: Consider a line with Lawful and Chaotic on either end. We'll name ultimate lawful as 0 and ultimate chaotic as 100. The exact center is 50, which is the perfect example of Neutral.
Every character is in that line, somewhere. The pinnacle of Chaos would be at 100, while the pinnacle of Lawful would be at 0. (This would be Lawful Stupid, probably.) I think a character can be at (say) 25, and still have a lawful alignment. If that character I'd also at 25 with regards to good, he's LG in my book, and fit to be a paladin, but he's not Lawful Stupid, and he may do some things that could be considered neutral.
I have a feeling that you think a Lawful character should be at absolute 0, or maybe between 0 and 10, to have a Lawful alignment. Everything else is Neutral. Is that correct?
(Note that the same line also can be drawn between Good and Evil, to give the full spectrum of all shades of alignments.
Just wanted to drop back in and basically agree with this post.
Also, my earlier post was debunked as "all Neutral Good" without any examples of why that's the case - I very carefully made sure that those examples can be Lawful Good, and are not in violation of LG as an alignment - they're all good people who have a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They tell the truth, keeps their word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. They all hate to see the guilty go unpunished. Those characteristics are the very definition of LG.
Now, the obvious answer is that they can be NG, as well. Yes, that's right (except for the paladin). But to convince me that they can't be LG, you'd have to convince me why they can't be LG and must be NG.
Alignment is nothing but gang colors. A group has a Paladin who detects evil in a traveling group of merchants. They detect as "evil" so the party gleefully murders them and it's somehow a good act. Alignments might make sense for outsiders, but for mortal races, everyone has their good days and bad days. Sorry, defenders of D%D of yore, alignment was always stupid, and it still is.
I might not pay all that much attention to alignment (until someone uses magic that interacts with it, it's really not a big thing in my games), but the above is not a good act. Maybe the merchants are carrying an evil artefact to be disposed of at the temple to the god of justice, maybe they've been cursed, whatever, but the paladin doesn't know what's causing them to detect as evil, he just knows that they do. Any paladin who doesn't get at least a secondary confirmation of evil (say, witnessing an attempt at human sacrifice, or worshipping an evil deity's idol, or anything that's not a simple magic trick) will be on the receiving end of "so, what's it like being the warrior NPC class?".
You have a VERY narrow view of alignments, what they mean, and how to include them in games.
Do you think actions outside an alignment are not cause for an alignment change?
Or in other words do you think you can you "dip" but come back into alignment without repercussions?
By the most strict definitions, no. A Lawful good character would need to "atone" for doing anything other than Law and Good, even if its not a longterm character change.
Followers of Deities are less strict as they have to remain within one alignment shift so a God of Good and Freedom will allow Good, Freedom, or Good/Freedom at the same time.
I think that characters are more complex than 9 shades of whatever. I think that a character who repeatedly behaves contrary to the alignment on their sheet is looking at an alignment shift. I absolutely do not think there's anything wrong with having a nuanced character who doesn't behave like an absolute paragon of their alignment.
No, a LG character should not have to take any atoning actions if they do something naughty (like telling a lie to get past the evil guards at the dark tower of evil dark evilness). Now, if they lie to get into the tower, lie when they get back to the king and tell him that the princess was murdered before they got there (rather than telling him that the party wizard fireballed her), and then brag about how they duped the king when they go out partying later, then perhaps it's time for a chat.
Is this thread for real?
For the Paladin, I dont know how I could play with that class as its too different for me to play as it is summarized as "Lawful Stupid".Ever watch Transformers and see Optimus Prime?
Ever find the Dresden Files and read about Michael Carpenter?
If you could successfully ape either of them at the table, you'd be fine.
Holger Carlson from Poul Anderson's novel "Three Hearts and Three Lions" if you're looking for literary examples in the f/sf area. For historical legend you have The Twelve Peers of Charlemagne.
Well... I've seen people around here defending the notion that a Paladin should fall for using bow and arrow... So I wouldn't be too surprised....that's a new one on me, Lemmy, particularly given Erastil's weapon is a longbow, I believe?
Was this using a bow for an ambush, or just generally?
It is clearly dishonorable and a chaotic/evil act to use a ranged weapon like some coward. I hereby decree all ranged paladins shall fall!*
*Just ignore the two archetypes that are for ranged paladins. K?
Ok would you elaborate on a the 3 tier scale of Law-neutral-Chaos using a scale of 1 through 10?
Alignment should be a description not a proscription.
I always hear this, but as long as 'falling' is a game mechanic, this will not be the case.
Edit: The nature of divine casting means there will always be some form of punishment for devotees who stray from their gods' code of conduct, even if Alignment didn't exist. So in that way, divine casters' behavior will always be subject to restrictions.
The measure of a game mechanic is not how it fails with munchkin players or malicious DMs. Because you can't design a game to cushion against those who are determined to abuse it.
Fact of the matter is, there are gamers and groups who function well with alignment or it would not have endured for 4 decades.
It is also true that there are groups who have either ditched alignment in their D20 based games or have moved onto other ames not bound by either alignment or as much crunch.
Both of these groups are right.
I wish this were true. It certainly should be. Both groups should be right. You should be correct. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
If you wanted to play a Fighter who only used axes, how difficult would that be to accomplish? How much resistance would you expect from other gamers, in your group or if you suddenly found another one? How many houserules would the DM have to implement to accommodate your desire to play an axe-only Fighter? And last but not least, exactly how much traction would you expect a notion to make all Fighters all across the game to only be able to use axes to get?
The very idea is laughable. If you want to play a Fighter who inly uses axes, the difficult and herculean task to accomplish that is: play a Fighter who only uses axes. There you go. That's it. Not difficult to do at all. All you have to do is exercise that option. You don't need a rule requiring you to only take the option that you want to take anyway. And it most certainly isn't necessary for Paizo to issue some kind of errata for Fighters to only be able to use axes for you to enjoy your axe-only Fighter.
In like fashion, you know what's necessary to play a lawful Monk? Or a non-lawful Barbarian? Or a lawful good Paladin? Select the class you want to play. Select the alignment you want to play. However unnecessary everything I suggested for the hypothetical axe-only Fighter was is just as unnecessary for all of those. You want to play a lawful good Paladin? I want you to play a lawful good Paladin. Believe me, I am absolutely giddy and ecstatic at the prospect of you playing the lawful good Paladin that you want to play. I just wish players that wanted to play a non-lawful-good Paladin had to go through as little grief as you.
Why? Because you should be right. Both groups should get to be right. But that's not where this game is.
You can go up to any random Pathfinder group and state a desire to play a Fighter who only uses axes. You don't have to steel yourself for any kind of knockdown, drag-out philosophical war to do so. You can go up to any random Pathfinder group and decide to play a lawful Monk with every expectation of not having to put up with any friction from that class/alignment combination.
When I can walk up to any random Pathfinder group and decide to play a non-lawful Monk with every expectation that I won't have to hear any crap about it, then you get to be right that both groups get to be right. Under those circumstances, where alignment is just a tool to be used or discarded as desired, where there is no semblance of any requirement regarding alignment's presence in the rest of the ruleset, then Zhayne's comment about alignment being "utterly f**king stupid" becomes an exaggeration. As it stands, with alignment being the cancerous tumor that it is that is such a chore to excise, Zhayne's comment is nothing but the truth.
I wish you really were right. Both groups should get to be right. This is a game, a Saturday afternoon diversion. It should not have this sort of aggravation associated with it. For the unmitigated gall of wanting to play a Monk, players should not have to have a looming sword of Damocles hanging over their head. There's no one who has kicked enough puppies to deserve this.
Well I mean, I find that less an issue of you being disenfranchised and more an issue of people generally being reluctant to go outside the rules. I encounter the same resistance when I try to convince people to let me play a Wilder.