The ends justify the means, by my interpretation of the alignment system.Your only evidence is that this is true of Evil Alignments. Which I'd agree with, even while strongly disagreeing that it's true of Good Alignments.
Indeed, the Paladin Code is strong evidence it isn't true of Good Alignments.
All alignments are equal in the eyes of the alignment system; playing the game any other way makes me not want to play at your table. I don't want to be punished for playing a good character.
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
This line matters because it more or less flat out allows our LG paladins to tolerate evil characters and evil actions so long as it progresses the plot. 'Exceptional' is the key word here, since it is the same word used to describe the difference between player characters and NPCs, implying that paladins who are PCs (and thus the circumstances in which their story is told be exceptional lest we not bother telling the story) can more or less tolerate lesser evils so long as it advances the plot of the game.
Narrativism is a hard thing to explain to people because everyone wants to make paladins fall, but the rules on alignment themselves specifically call out exceptions to the rule and whatnot as cited above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.... because ridiculousness like the above.... A paladin is not "Going to the moon", playing something else is not "Driving to Idaho". And it's not the games fault if your goal is "I want to go to the moon!" and then you decide to instead just dig into the earth. Alignment isn't forcing your actions, you can commit chaotic evil actions. And that wont always be "against concept", sometimes characters will want to fall or become a different class. But alignment isn't controlling your character's actions. It's not actually preventing the character from doing anything, it just happens that if you do have an alignment then there are ramifications for having that alignment.When John F. Kennedy challenged the nation to put a man on the moon within a decade, did anyone suggest "Well, we can't do that, but we can drive to Idaho"? No, of course not. Why? Because when the criterion for the solution are "man/on moon/within ten years", any so-called solution that does not fulfill those criterion is not a solution. And "play something else" is equally not a solution.
How is it a strawman to point that out?
That's exactly it, though. The only way "ramifications for having an alignment" can exist is if alignment exists. The class, its concepts and mechanics, is formed of a multitude of ideas and influences. But only one of those is creating the issue, and the precise excision of only that one such tumor resolves the problem.
And yes, it is the game's fault. I create a Monk (not a Brawler or an Unarmed Fighter or a Martial Artist but a Monk). I do not immediately decide on that Monk's alignment but instead follow the advice given in the Gamemastery Guide where one is to consider the character's traits, backstory, and so on and organically find out what alignment that turns out to be, and lo and behold, it turns out to not be Lawful.
I do everything in good faith that I'm not going to get hosed by the process and what happens? I get hosed. The game sets me up for failure. Why? Not because of any aspect of the class nor its underlying concept or any other aspect of the game except for where it intersects with alignment. I never decided to dig into the earth. I have been trying most fervently to get to the moon. It's alignment that keeps getting in the way. It's that element of malicious gotcha-ness that creates the issue. It is the one cancer whose removal most quickly resolves all of the unwarranted hosing that, quite frankly, I haven't kicked enough puppies to deserve to have to put up with.
Regarding what I bolded above, I remember that being a central component of most of Jigsaw's games in the Saw franchise. Yes, every single one of his patients did have the choice to go through all the maiming and goring and horrific torture in order to live or not go through it all only to be killed by the trap. But if we're not saying that Jigsaw is blameless in putting those people in those situations, then we can't say the game is blameless for forcing a player to choose "play a Monk, just not with any aspect of his personality remotely how I envisioned the damned character" versus "play that character, just not doing anything he was meant to be able to do" or "play a different game altogether".
Who deserves that kind of stress on their Saturday afternoon break from the rest of the week? Why is the looming Sword of Damocles being promoted?
That's exactly it, though. The only way "ramifications for having an alignment" can exist is if alignment exists.
Wait a minute.... Did you think I was suggesting that alignment doesn't exist?
And yes, it is the game's fault. I create a Monk (not a Brawler or an Unarmed Fighter or a Martial Artist but a Monk). I do not immediately decide on that Monk's alignment but instead follow the advice given in the Gamemastery Guide where one is to consider the character's traits, backstory, and so on and organically find out what alignment that turns out to be, and lo and behold, it turns out to not be Lawful.
And? That doesn't break any of the rules. There's no reason why that cannot happen.
I never decided to dig into the earth.
Well you sorta did, since monks get their power from all the stuff tied to practising lawful behaviour.... I'll pretend you said barbarian though, since it seems to make the point your trying to make.
I have been trying most fervently to get to the moon. It's alignment that keeps getting in the way.
That's irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm saying "A rule that says you cannot purchase a particular soup if you're wearing a red hat isn't forcing you to wear a red hat. It can give reason for you to wear a red hat when you otherwise wouldn't, but it isn't forcing you to wear the hat."
|
All alignments are equal in the eyes of the alignment system; playing the game any other way makes me not want to play at your table. I don't want to be punished for playing a good character.
The kind of actions that change Alignment are already profoundly different. They're symmetrical mechanically, but don't need to be symmetrical in the standards they require one to uphold. At all. Indeed, Neutral alignments are already definitionally easier to uphold than either of the others.
This line matters because it more or less flat out allows our LG paladins to tolerate evil characters and evil actions so long as it progresses the plot. 'Exceptional' is the key word here, since it is the same word used to describe the difference between player characters and NPCs, implying that paladins who are PCs (and thus the circumstances in which their story is told be exceptional lest we not bother telling the story) can more or less tolerate lesser evils so long as it advances the plot of the game.
This isn't really an equivalent statement, though. They can tolerate lesser evils, yes. But they can't commit them. Any Evil act and they still fall, regardless of their motivations. That's pretty definitive.
Narrativism is a hard thing to explain to people because everyone wants to make paladins fall, but the rules on alignment themselves specifically call out exceptions to the rule and whatnot as cited above.
I've never made a Paladin fall. I doubt I ever will. Doesn't mean I don't hold them to certain standards of behavior.
All alignments are equal in the eyes of the alignment system; playing the game any other way makes me not want to play at your table. I don't want to be punished for playing a good character.The kind of actions that change Alignment are already profoundly different. They're symmetrical mechanically, but don't need to be symmetrical in the standards they require one to uphold. At all. Indeed, Neutral alignments are already definitionally easier to uphold than either of the others.
This line matters because it more or less flat out allows our LG paladins to tolerate evil characters and evil actions so long as it progresses the plot. 'Exceptional' is the key word here, since it is the same word used to describe the difference between player characters and NPCs, implying that paladins who are PCs (and thus the circumstances in which their story is told be exceptional lest we not bother telling the story) can more or less tolerate lesser evils so long as it advances the plot of the game.This isn't really an equivalent statement, though. They can tolerate lesser evils, yes. But they can't commit them. Any Evil act and they still fall, regardless of their motivations. That's pretty definitive.
Narrativism is a hard thing to explain to people because everyone wants to make paladins fall, but the rules on alignment themselves specifically call out exceptions to the rule and whatnot as cited above.I've never made a Paladin fall. I doubt I ever will. Doesn't mean I don't hold them to certain standards of behavior.
I think we're saying the same thing, but I fear I am not communicating clearly enough.
That's exactly it, though. The only way "ramifications for having an alignment" can exist is if alignment exists.Wait a minute.... Did you think I was suggesting that alignment doesn't exist?
Not at all. I'm not talking about whether alignment does or does not exist. I'm talking about the problems that stem from alignment indeed existing and how head-spinningly easily they're fixed by alignment's absence. Not the class's absence, not the player's absence, not the absence of any desire on the player's part to continue playing what, by all rights, he should be able to play without all this headache. Alignment's absence.
And yes, it is the game's fault. I create a Monk (not a Brawler or an Unarmed Fighter or a Martial Artist but a Monk). I do not immediately decide on that Monk's alignment but instead follow the advice given in the Gamemastery Guide where one is to consider the character's traits, backstory, and so on and organically find out what alignment that turns out to be, and lo and behold, it turns out to not be Lawful.And? That doesn't break any of the rules. There's no reason why that cannot happen.
"We're driving players away and souring their experience with our game. They come here to relax and enjoy themselves, and we yank the rug out from under them and give them grief. But it's all within the rules, so hey, no skin off our teeth, right?"
I called that "malicious gotcha-ness". It's apt.
I never decided to dig into the earth.Well you sorta did, since monks get their power from all the stuff tied to practising lawful behaviour.... I'll pretend you said barbarian though, since it seems to make the point your trying to make.
No, they practice disciplined behavior, which is only one aspect of lawful behavior. Or are you telling me that if I have my Monk behave disciplined, then I can otherwise go out of my way to be as chaotic as I can imagine and, as long as it doesn't impact his "disciplined-ness", the lawful component of that character's alignment is essentially idiotproof?
Second of all, who says that's where Monks get their power? If you want to talk about Monks in Golarion, then that's one thing. I'm not going to disagree. But Pathfinder =/= Golarion, and Golarion's explanation for how Monks work is not the explanation for every other kind of Monk in every other campaign setting that a group of players could want to play in. That's part and parcel of what it means to be a setting-neutral game system. When you're advertising a car, your customer has a reasonable expectation that the final product is going to have wheels. When you're making a setting-neutral game system, even one with a flagship setting, your customers have a reasonable expectation that they should not have to put up with an uphill philosophical war just to sit down and enjoy themselves.
I have been trying most fervently to get to the moon. It's alignment that keeps getting in the way.That's irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm saying "A rule that says you cannot purchase a particular soup if you're wearing a red hat isn't forcing you to wear a red hat. It can give reason for you to wear a red hat when you otherwise wouldn't, but it isn't forcing you to wear the hat."
And when Jigsaw tells his every victim "Live or die. Make your choice.", they also do indeed have a choice. So... he gets to wash his hands of the whole scenario, blameless?
"Setting neutrality" does not actually exist outside of rulesets that go out of their way to make sure they are as light and open-ended as possible. Pathfinder is not one of those rulesets.
All rules have default implications in their presentation and some abstractions to give limited breathing room for some tweaks here and there. The 9 alignments are not forcing monks to be lawful, the text in the class section is forcing monks to be lawful.
Also I would like to point out that Martial Artist archetype lets you play monk of any alignment.
Not at all. I'm not talking about whether alignment does or does not exist. I'm talking about the problems that stem from alignment indeed existing and how head-spinningly easily they're fixed by alignment's absence. Not the class's absence, not the player's absence, not the absence of any desire on the player's part to continue playing what, by all rights, he should be able to play without all this headache. Alignment's absence.
Again... Irrelevant to what I was arguing against.
"We're driving players away and souring their experience with our game. They come here to relax and enjoy themselves, and we yank the rug out from under them and give them grief. But it's all within the rules, so hey, no skin off our teeth, right?"
I called that "malicious gotcha-ness". It's apt.
Wait. "You can have a monk that's later turns out to be chaotic within the rules without it weakening the character at all" = "malicious" now?
No, they practice disciplined behavior, which is only one aspect of lawful behavior. Or are you telling me that if I have my Monk behave disciplined, then I can otherwise go out of my way to be as chaotic as I can...
They literally embrace a martial discipline to the extent it's not just acting disciplined, instead "it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind" for them. Thats what the core rulebook says. When you're disciplined to the extent that it becomes infused within every aspect of your life and mind... you're lawful.
And when Jigsaw tells his every victim "Live or die. Make your choice.", they also do indeed have a choice. So... he gets to wash his hands of the whole scenario, blameless?
Again ridiculous strawman.... To increase your monkly awareness you need to dedicate your life to an ancient philosophy to such an immense extent that your discipline is also your lifestyle, doctrine, and state of mind. That's it....
For god's sake, you can be as chaotic as you want, then decide "I want to better at my monk stuff" and return to a life of discipline and dedication until your alignment turns to lawful. Retrain your non-monk class levels to monk, and then eventually leave the life happy with your current level of ascendance and stop having the discipline rule your life and thinking and become chaotic again, since.... being chaotic doesn't stop you from using your monk powers, being lawful is just required to increase your monk abilities.
Not at all. I'm not talking about whether alignment does or does not exist. I'm talking about the problems that stem from alignment indeed existing and how head-spinningly easily they're fixed by alignment's absence. Not the class's absence, not the player's absence, not the absence of any desire on the player's part to continue playing what, by all rights, he should be able to play without all this headache. Alignment's absence.Again... Irrelevant to what I was arguing against.
Very well, but it's completely relevant to what I'm arguing against.
Wait. "You can have a monk that's later turns out to be chaotic within the rules without it weakening the character at all" = "malicious" now?"We're driving players away and souring their experience with our game. They come here to relax and enjoy themselves, and we yank the rug out from under them and give them grief. But it's all within the rules, so hey, no skin off our teeth, right?"
I called that "malicious gotcha-ness". It's apt.
I had to have him be lawful at the time. OR, I had to bide my time as something unrelated, and then be lawful long enough to retrain everything into Monk. But what we absolutely can't have above all else is everyone, regardless of what sort of character they want to play, being able to sit down at that table and create what they want to play with no more undue fuss than anyone else.
Do you have to be conniving and manipulative to work around the system to play a religious Wizard, even though that's more the Cleric's thing? Do you have to hoodwink the game to play a nature-y themed Bloodrager, even though that's more the Ranger's thing? Why then do I have to reach around my elbow to get to my thumb?
No, they practice disciplined behavior, which is only one aspect of lawful behavior. Or are you telling me that if I have my Monk behave disciplined, then I can otherwise go out of my way to be as chaotic as I can...They literally embrace a martial discipline to the extent it's not just acting disciplined, instead "it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind" for them. Thats what the core rulebook says. When you're disciplined to the extent that it becomes infused within every aspect of your life and mind... you're lawful.
Lawful types care about the smooth functioning of society and promoting co-dependence between everyone in said society. Disciplined Monks ... don't give a damn. They live in isolated monasteries (or just as likely, complete isolation from everyone, including their fellow Monks) specifically to get away from all that mundane clutter. Respecting and obeying legitimate authority? Sure, they respect their masters, and will not go out of their way to make waves with the likes of generals and kings, but that is purely a matter of pragmatism. It's called "not poking the dragon" and lots of people do that for lots of reasons, only some of which include respect for said dragon. Authority figures, no matter how highly placed, are still aspects of the mundane world that they are trying to get away from. Keeping their word? Where are you seeing that in "ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines"?
So I reiterate. Either you're arguing that, for Monks, being disciplined overrides every other conceivable effort a character could put forth towards being chaotic. Or you agree that the Monk's requirement to be disciplined maps poorly to the alignment system and therefore the Monk's lawful requirement brings in unwarranted, extraneous baggage that only serves as a negative.
And when Jigsaw tells his every victim "Live or die. Make your choice.", they also do indeed have a choice. So... he gets to wash his hands of the whole scenario, blameless?Again ridiculous strawman.... To increase your monkly awareness you need to dedicate your life to an ancient philosophy to such an immense extent that your discipline is also your lifestyle, doctrine, and state of mind. That's it....
For god's sake, you can be as chaotic as you want, then decide "I want to better at my monk stuff" and return to a life of discipline and dedication until your alignment turns to lawful. Retrain your non-monk class levels to monk, and then eventually leave the life happy with your current level of ascendance and stop having the discipline rule your life and thinking and become chaotic again, since.... being chaotic doesn't stop you from using your monk powers, being lawful is just required to increase your monk abilities.
"Hey, what are you playing?"
"A Fighter.""19th level, wow. You've been putting a lot of effort into this one."
"Yeah, I'm really looking forward to level 20. Then, I'm going to briefly act lawful enough to get an alignment change, then retrain everything into Monk, and then I'll finally be able to play the character I've been wanting to play since this game started."
"I... you... what?"
And it's still the principle of the thing, even if the game isn't one that would get to 20th level.
All it is is just another version of having to fight the system, hoodwink it, and connive and manipulate. Extra headaches that I no more deserve to have to go through than you would if you wanted to play a Dwarf Sorcerer or an Orc Wizard. When I have to work around the system, it communicates that I'm trying to pursue something Badwrongfun. How does that even exist in a game like this? How do people defend this?
"Setting neutrality" does not actually exist outside of rulesets that go out of their way to make sure they are as light and open-ended as possible. Pathfinder is not one of those rulesets.
All rules have default implications in their presentation and some abstractions to give limited breathing room for some tweaks here and there. The 9 alignments are not forcing monks to be lawful, the text in the class section is forcing monks to be lawful.Also I would like to point out that Martial Artist archetype lets you play monk of any alignment.
I appreciate the spirit in which this was offered, but that's not sufficient. The only difference between the Martial Artist and the standard Monk is the class features that got traded out. Dimension Door does not have the Lawful descriptor. Etherealness does not have the Lawful descriptor. Though I dislike how it works, spell resistance is not inherently Lawful. And according to the Ninja, the Rogue, and the Oracle, having a ki pool is not tied to Lawfulness. The only thing remotely Lawful about the Monk's abilities are his Ki Strike (Lawful) and certain parts of his Perfect Self, both of which could have been handled better*. So if nothing that got traded out inherently gave a damn about lawfulness, how then can the standard Monk be dependent on being Lawful? All the Martial Artist archetype does is expose the lie further.
*
And on Perfect Self, just make the damage reduction apply to the opposite of the Ki Strike you ended up with at 10th level: DR 10/chaotic if Ki Strike (Lawful), DR 10/lawful if Ki Strike (Chaotic). Something as simplistic as that preserves everything that players who want to play Lawful Monks already get but no longer steps on other players' toes to do so. More people happier. Why is that bad? Heck, the only people it steps on the toes of are those who cannot enjoy their Lawful Monks without knowing that other players have to fight the system to enjoy themselves. Why is that to be encouraged? It's like "human empathy" is some alien concept.
You want to play your Lawful ki-using Monk? I want you to play your Lawful ki-using Monk. Believe me, I'm giddy at the thought that you get to play what you want to play without having to jump through hoops to do so. I'm asking for reciprocity here (or more realistically, an acknowledgment that such reciprocity should have existed and its absence is a stain on the game). That's it. Fairness. You don't have to jump through hoops. No one else should have to, either. Goose, gander.
|
I think you're looking at lawful at the wrong perspective, since lawful is comparative to order. Monks live extremely orderly lives, with much structure, more often then not many rules, and patterns of behavior. When it comes to their philosophy, belief, and way of life they are that of rules, discipline, habit, and a strict path to follow... Thus lawful.
I honestly can't understand how this doesn't make sense to you, how you can somehow go forward thinking that monks could be chaotic. A chaotic individual would not be able to live the sort of life that a monk does, having neither the discipline, focus, or state of mind needed for such a path.
I think you're looking at lawful at the wrong perspective, since lawful is comparative to order. Monks live extremely orderly lives, with much structure, more often then not many rules, and patterns of behavior. When it comes to their philosophy, belief, and way of life they are that of rules, discipline, habit, and a strict path to follow... Thus lawful.
I honestly can't understand how this doesn't make sense to you, how you can somehow go forward thinking that monks could be chaotic. A chaotic individual would not be able to live the sort of life that a monk does, having neither the discipline, focus, or state of mind needed for such a path.
Would a person who has discipline, focus, and a state of mind for monkhood and used that discipline to tear down every government they came across (let's say they believe that government structures are inhibiting people from accessing their true potential because people rely on kings and politicians to protect them rather than doing it for themselves) be lawful or chaotic?
|
|
Would a person who has discipline, focus, and a state of mind for monkhood and used that discipline to tear down every government they came across (let's say they believe that government structures are inhibiting people from accessing their true potential because people rely on kings and politicians to protect them rather than doing it for themselves) be lawful or chaotic?
Can you name a single monk or monastery that stood against all governmental systems or rulers?
Now if it happened to be a tyrant or ruler who attacked the monastery and those that lived their, killing and slaughtering them or perhaps banning the practice of their beliefs... I could consider them being against that particular government or ruler/tyrant, but all not so much.
I can't think of a single monk or order of such who felt that all governmental structures needed to be taken down or that they all or even most inhibited people from reaching their true potential.
Even then, be against a particular government because you did not agree with what they're doing or feel they limit others would not in and of itself make the monk unlawful. A monk I could see joining a group of adventurers, or "freedom fighters" even, against tyranny just as I feel a paladin would do so as well. You don't need to be chaotic to be against a particular government structure, nation, a ruler... nor would all those that are chaotic stand against all or even more governments as well.
There is more freedom to alignment then that, particularly when considering each of the nine alignments in turn.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would a person who has discipline, focus, and a state of mind for monkhood and used that discipline to tear down every government they came across (let's say they believe that government structures are inhibiting people from accessing their true potential because people rely on kings and politicians to protect them rather than doing it for themselves) be lawful or chaotic?
As long as the monk in question follows this code, or this behavior, consistently and reliably, I could be persuaded to consider the monk to be Lawful.
|
|
As long as the monk in question follows this code, or this behavior, consistently and reliably, I could be persuaded to consider the monk to be Lawful.
Agreed, though admittedly I would still wonder what code or order would lead a monk to see all governments as equally bad and worthy of being taken down.
|
Would a person who has discipline, focus, and a state of mind for monkhood and used that discipline to tear down every government they came across (let's say they believe that government structures are inhibiting people from accessing their true potential because people rely on kings and politicians to protect them rather than doing it for themselves) be lawful or chaotic?As long as the monk in question follows this code, or this behavior, consistently and reliably, I could be persuaded to consider the monk to be Lawful.Which just shows you don't follow the alignment system. Lawful characters "respect authority" and "honor tradition,". Law implies "obedience to authority".
The rulebook does not say lawful means "following a code consistently". It goes into detail about what that code implies(honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability). Someone who wants to destroy governments is at best, a neutral character not a lawful one.
And your response shows you put too much emphasis on the "Law" name of the alignment.
Law and laws are too separate things.
A Lawful person who want's to bring down a government, or who systematically want's to bring down all governments could in fact be Lawful.
|
|
Yet what can be brought into question is what authority. Not all authority is worthy of respect or of being followed, and while this could fall more under those of Good alignment... I feel that those who are lawful and those with their own personal code or tradition could very well stand against those they do not believe are of legitimate or worthy authority.
Of course you still haven't explained what could possibly lead a monk to have a vendetta against all governments and have it make sense, nor offered any examples of monks that actually do have such beliefs. At least, those monks that would not simply ignore said governments on their path of enlightenment and actively stand against them instead.
Would a person who has discipline, focus, and a state of mind for monkhood and used that discipline to tear down every government they came across (let's say they believe that government structures are inhibiting people from accessing their true potential because people rely on kings and politicians to protect them rather than doing it for themselves) be lawful or chaotic?As long as the monk in question follows this code, or this behavior, consistently and reliably, I could be persuaded to consider the monk to be Lawful.Which just shows you don't follow the alignment system. Lawful characters "respect authority" and "honor tradition,". Law implies "obedience to authority".
The rulebook does not say lawful means "following a code consistently". It goes into detail about what that code implies(honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability). Someone who wants to destroy governments is at best, a neutral character not a lawful one.
Noteably, a character who lies also isn't being lawful. In fact, someone who "is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." is a neutral character. So, somehow, lying too often will make it impossible for you to learn the ways of the monk.
The rulebook also says it's a matter of interpretation and that the DM's view is the final word on the matter.
I think the main problem with the alignment system is that people forget it's subjective (from an out-of-game or meta-game perspective) and that if your table has a different view than my table, that's things working as intended.
It works fine - if your table wants things loose, run it loose. If it works better to treat it as straitjacket, run it super-strict. If your table just wants to ignore it, ignore it and rejig those things which rely on alignment mechanically.
The only time it's an issue is if some of the group want something different from what the DM is providing - but that's a broad issue and isn't specific to alignment.
|
|
Would a person who has discipline, focus, and a state of mind for monkhood and used that discipline to tear down every government they came across (let's say they believe that government structures are inhibiting people from accessing their true potential because people rely on kings and politicians to protect them rather than doing it for themselves) be lawful or chaotic?As long as the monk in question follows this code, or this behavior, consistently and reliably, I could be persuaded to consider the monk to be Lawful.Which just shows you don't follow the alignment system. Lawful characters "respect authority" and "honor tradition,". Law implies "obedience to authority".
The rulebook does not say lawful means "following a code consistently". It goes into detail about what that code implies(honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability). Someone who wants to destroy governments is at best, a neutral character not a lawful one.
And your response shows you put too much emphasis on the "Law" name of the alignment.
Law and laws are too separate things.
A Lawful person who want's to bring down a government, or who systematically want's to bring down all governments could in fact be Lawful.
The rulebook disagrees with you. Its explicit that Lawful characters are obedient to authority, respect authority and honor tradition.
Its fine if you want to houserule it, but the rules are clear on what Lawful is.
Actually, you're housreuling it since you're intentionally altering what that section says. It does not "explicitly" say anything.
The exact word it uses is implies.
Implies "obedience to authority".
You can most certainly have Lawful characters that aren't obedient to authority.
Very well, but it's completely relevant to what I'm arguing against.
Congratulations?
I had to have him be lawful at the time.
So?
OR, I had to bide my time as something unrelated, and then be lawful long enough to retrain everything into Monk. Do you have to be conniving and manipulative to work around the system to play a religious Wizard, even though that's more the Cleric's thing? Do you have to hoodwink the game to play a nature-y themed Bloodrager, even though that's more the Ranger's thing? Why then do I have to reach around my elbow to get to my thumb?
Nothing in the fluff of becoming a wizard would suggest being religious is a problem to learning wizardry. Being chaotic and undisciplined stopping a person from becoming enlightened in the manner of monkhood is part of the fluff both in D&D & PF, and in the media the monk class is based on.
So I reiterate. Either you're arguing that, for Monks, being disciplined overrides every other conceivable effort a character could put forth towards being chaotic. Or you agree that the Monk's requirement to be disciplined maps poorly to the alignment system and therefore the Monk's lawful requirement brings in unwarranted, extraneous baggage that only serves as a negative.
They aren't just "being disciplined" they are being disciplined to the extent that it defines your way of thinking and lifestyle. When you have disciplined yourself to that ridiculous of an extent, you are lawful. Seriously, just start talking about bard or barbarian, your argument becomes a lot more valid in those cases. Monk has a justifiable reason for it's restriction (regardless of whether or not it is negative to the game is a YMMV thing), but Bard and Barbarian don't have any good reason for their restriction.
"Hey, what are you playing?"
"A Fighter."
"19th level, wow. You've been putting a lot of effort into this one."
"Yeah, I'm really looking forward to level 20. Then, I'm going to briefly act lawful enough to get an alignment change, then retrain everything into Monk, and then I'll finally be able to play the character I've been wanting to play since this game started."
"I... you... what?"
That's not what I suggesting at all.... Why would the person I'm describing wait to be a monk for so ridiculously long?
"Hey, what are you playing?"
"A 15th Monk with single brawler level."
"Wait I though you were chaotic? Don't you have to be lawful to be a monk?"
"Not exactly. To better reach enlightenment I must become subsumed by discipline, but I'm not a really lawful person. So every now and then I have to return to my ascetic philosophy allowing myself to retrain that stray brawler levels to a monk level."
"Fair enough"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rulebook disagrees with you. Its explicit that Lawful characters are obedient to authority, respect authority and honor tradition.
Its fine if you want to houserule it, but the rules are clear on what Lawful is.
No, that is simply how you interpreted "rules" on alignment, more exact considerations up to the DM and players.
Also, I repeat muself:
---------------------------
Yet what can be brought into question is what authority. Not all authority is worthy of respect or of being followed, and while this could fall more under those of Good alignment... I feel that those who are lawful and those with their own personal code or tradition could very well stand against those they do not believe are of legitimate or worthy authority.
Of course you still haven't explained what could possibly lead a monk to have a vendetta against all governments and have it make sense, nor offered any examples of monks that actually do have such beliefs. At least, those monks that would not simply ignore said governments on their path of enlightenment and actively stand against them instead.
Can you name a single monk or monastery that stood against all governmental systems or rulers?
Now if it happened to be a tyrant or ruler who attacked the monastery and those that lived their, killing and slaughtering them or perhaps banning the practice of their beliefs... I could consider them being against that particular government or ruler/tyrant, but all not so much.
I can't think of a single monk or order of such who felt that all governmental structures needed to be taken down or that they all or even most inhibited people from reaching their true potential.
Even then, be against a particular government because you did not agree with what they're doing or feel they limit others would not in and of itself make the monk unlawful. A monk I could see joining a group of adventurers, or "freedom fighters" even, against tyranny just as I feel a paladin would do so as well. You don't need to be chaotic to be against a particular government structure, nation, a ruler... nor would all those that are chaotic stand against all or even more governments as well.
There is more freedom to alignment then that, particularly when considering each of the nine alignments in turn.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Lastly, page 68 of the Dungeon Mastery Guide:
"Alignment is easily one of the most debated topics in roleplaying, and straddles the line between descriptive element and rules element. How it is treated varies wildly; for some GMs it’s merely a two-letter description, while for others it’s a web of permissions and restrictions. Sorting out how this system works is important; it determines how players portray their characters, and how you as GM adjudicate certain aspects of the game.
Alignment exists primarily to define and summarize the moral and ethical tendencies of characters in a game, for both PCs and NPCs, and finds its roots in the fantasy literature that inspires most roleplaying games. Many characters in such stories easily fall into the camps of good or evil, but others straddle the line and seem good in one instance and evil in the next. Additionally, the relationship and outlook of these characters toward matters of law, justice, freedom, and anarchy further divides them. Just as one character might ignore society’s rules in order to do what he knows is right,
another might work great evil by manipulating laws to his own ends. Alignment is summarized on page 166 of the Core Rulebook, but the interpretations are endless, and ultimately lie with you as the GM at a mechanical standpoint, and with your players in how they define their characters’ morality. Some gamers favor strict alignments and black-and-white judgments, while others prefer a gritty, “realistic” game in which morality is relative, and well-intentioned “good” characters are capable of terrible atrocities.
Many of the debates spawned by alignment arise as the system moves beyond mere description to taking on a role that affects the game’s rules. While no real-world humans can say they’re entirely good or law-abiding, there exist creatures in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that are fundamentally good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and some magic
depends on judging a character by its alignment. Because game effects are associated with an ultimately subjective system, you should make sure your players understand your interpretation of alignment ahead of time. The following are a few ways you might handle alignment in your game or use it to help players develop their characters.
Predestination
The simplest way to view alignment is as nine literal personalities. If a character is lawful good, he always obeys the law and always does the “right” thing, while a chaotic evil character always shirks the law and acts maliciously. This is a system of absolutes, where free will and context mean little, everything is pre-ordained, and every creature has a path. Players who view alignment as predestination might wear alignments like straitjackets, but at the same time, they always know how to roleplay their character’s reaction to situations. This proves both helpful and comforting to many players new to or ill at ease with roleplaying. This approach also renders alignment-based rules easy to arbitrate, turning every matter of determining alignment into a simple yes-no question. Problems with this method tend to arise when a game ventures into sketchier moral and ethical situations. A player might become uncomfortable when his lawful good character feels forced to obey the laws of an evil society, or might have trouble in a campaign that requires him to work with those whose alignments differ from his own.
Free Will
Many players tend to focus more on creating characters with consistent, specific personalities rather than alignments. These players envision their heroes’ backgrounds, personality traits, attitudes, and goals, and only then choose an alignment that best reflects these facets. A character’s alignment then becomes a way of categorizing his personality, rather than defining him and channeling his actions. As long as the player understands the impact of his choice on gameplay, this approach works smoothly. For example, a player who chooses the chaotic neutral alignment needs to understand that certain elements within the game world will judge him based on this decision (as with any other alignment). Some temples might deny him healing because the biggest threat in the region is chaotic monsters, viewing her alignment as grounds for suspicion. This method is also problematic when it becomes too general. Accepting alignment as a broad category can render it almost meaningless and make it difficult for you as the GM to judge whether a character is acting outside of her alignment and arbitrate any game effects associated with doing so.
Defining Deeds
Another way to see alignment is as a series of concentric rings. In the center ring are all the behaviors that are obviously acceptable according to a character’s alignment. Around that is a middle circle that covers the gray areas—actions that might be allowed under certain circumstances or are unclear.
On the outside is the forbidden area of extreme actions that obviously violate the alignment. Taking prisoners offers examples of all three circles. Accepting an opponent’s honorable surrender is clearly good. Torturing that prisoner for information might be in the forbidden area for a given good character. But what about threatening torture, if the PC doesn’t intend to carry out the threat? That falls into the middle circle. Taking this route means players must remember their characters’ alignment and act accordingly.
At the same time, while this route goes far toward suggesting how characters might act in specific situations, debates might arise when group members don’t see eye-to-eye about which acts are permissible. Additionally, some characters might have varying access to the gray areas of their alignment, and GMs should discuss where this line exists for characters who face repercussions for deviating from their moral code."
|
|
The first sentence is explicit.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."
Implies is nowhere to be found there. Lawful characters respect authority. A character that does not respect authority therefore cannot be lawful.
Respect is not the same as obey (the second part where obey comes up is priced by implies), note the last part of that sentence. "and judge those who fall short of their duties."
By your logic you couldn't play A Paladin or a Monk or most Clerics of Lawful Deities in Curse of the Crimson Throne and Hell's Rebels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first sentence is explicit.
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."
Implies is nowhere to be found there. Lawful characters respect authority. A character that does not respect authority therefore cannot be lawful.
Respect is not the same as obey (the second part where obey comes up is priced by implies), note the last part of that sentence. "and judge those who fall short of their duties."
By your logic you couldn't play A Paladin or a Monk or most Clerics of Lawful Deities in Curse of the Crimson Throne and Hell's Rebels.
I agree, you can't play those classes in those campaigns by the rules.
Or any campaign relying on deception due to the "lawful characters tell the truth" bit.
ANNNNNNNNNDDDD now we know how far wrong you are.
Which just shows you don't follow the alignment system. Lawful characters "respect authority" and "honor tradition,". Law implies "obedience to authority".
The rulebook does not say lawful means "following a code consistently". It goes into detail about what that code implies(honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability). Someone who wants to destroy governments is at best, a neutral character not a lawful one.
Noteably, a character who lies also isn't being lawful. In fact, someone who "is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others." is a neutral character. So, somehow, lying too often will make it impossible for you to learn the ways of the monk.
Which traditions? which authority? in any setting there would be be plenty of both and I would assume that not every one would be considered Lawful.
Maybe the monk follows the example set by Irori, maybe he seeks to find another way through the mastery of the body and not the mind. To me what makes him Lawful isn't that he follows an established authority or tradition, but that he follow some code(s) or traditions reliably and consistently, even if they are of his own making.As for the honor, trustworthiness and reliability, I don't really see how a monk, who opposes any kind of government couldn't act in a manner that would in line with those concepts.
Of course you still haven't explained what could possibly lead a monk to have a vendetta against all governments and have it make sense, nor offered any examples of monks that actually do have such beliefs. At least, those monks that would not simply ignore said governments on their path of enlightenment and actively stand against them instead.
I don't think that such an order of monk exists, I could however be wrong. But if a player came with such a concept to one of my games i wouldn't turn it away. Maybe imagine them as quasi-neitzschean mountain ascetics?
The alignment system isn't the problem, the players are the problem. Keep it simple.
|
|
I don't think that such an order of monk exists, I could however be wrong. But if a player came with such a concept to one of my games i wouldn't turn it away. Maybe imagine them as quasi-neitzschean mountain ascetics?
If the player could explain, having it fit the setting, and develop such a concept I'd allow it as well, but as of yet no explanation has been given.
|
|
I don't think that such an order of monk exists, I could however be wrong. But if a player came with such a concept to one of my games i wouldn't turn it away. Maybe imagine them as quasi-neitzschean mountain ascetics?If the player could explain, having it fit the setting, and develop such a concept I'd allow it as well, but as of yet no explanation has been given.
Hypothetical Monk has yet to see a government (or at least this specific type of government) that isn't in some way corrupt and/or oppressive/restrictive toward its populace that keeps them from reaching their true potential and chance at enlightenment.
*shrugs*
You guys might be putting to much of a emphasis on alignment really its guidelines Unless your an outsider then its absolute. Its not terribly uncommon for a person to act outside of it every once in awhile
I usually Only look to it if i'm not terribly sure of what my character would do in a given situation. Heh some games I've had players forget to choose an alignment then ask around what alignment do you guys think i've been playing and go with it.
|
|
Respecting all authority and all traditions equally would in fact be rather chaotic, not lawful.
Because it suggests a certain open-mindedness, that one is willing to consider that there are different ways a nation or people could be governed or different traditions in which to follow, showing a certain fluidity that those of lawful path and mindset could not accept?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful's roots are in determinism. There is a predetermined fate for everything, for the whole existence. We all have our role in it, and we contribute to the eternal order, like or not. This does not mean the existence of everything is predictable.
To be lawful thus means finding harmony in embracing this fatalism. You live your life, content with all the good and bad given to you, you respect the order of life around you and uphold it. After all, a king is not actually a king. King is a man who has status placed upon him that makes everyone else see him as a king, a ruler. You could say, a madman is both the beggar who sees himself as a king, but also the king who thinks he is a king. The king is powerless to do things outside of being a man who was given the fate of being a king.
Where monks come to this is that, there is great power in "going with the flow" so the speak. I quote the book, "Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be."
What they were MEANT TO BE. Monks do not gain the powers of Ki because they decide to get it themselves, they discover that they were fated to use it if they endured the path the original monks found.
Respecting all authority and all traditions equally would in fact be rather chaotic, not lawful.
Agreed. Who is more likely to condemn and oppose another system or tradition, Hell and Heaven or the Abyss and Elysium? I think the latter are much more likely to befriend or murder you based in their/your individual desires or personality rather than ideological opposition to your overarching government or society.
This argument demonstrates why the alignment system is dubious.
Yeah... there's a reason why I use the subjective morality rules rather than alignment.
|
|
I have and forever will use the alignment system when playing D&D or Pathfinder, and honestly I think one of the strengths of the game is the fact that it is more straight forward and not so dubious. As long as expectations are properly set up in the beginning of the campaign, with an understanding between players in the DM, I don't see where the issue could lie with the system itself.
I haven't had nor seen issues in any of the campaigns I've been a part of when it comes to alignment, meaning I feel it is more of an individual thing not an issue with the alignment system in and of itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment system is, has, and will always be a pile of crap. Philosophers for millennia have failed to objectively describe good, evil, chaos, and order, so expecting a game system to quantify the unquantifiable is a recipe for a crap sandwich with extra crap and a side of crap, with a Diet Crap to drink.
All the alignment terms are utterly subjective, for starters, as stated above. Anybody who's played for any length of time has encountered a GM whose opinion of what is (insert alignment keyword here).
Secondly, it utterly destroys any sense in the game world regarding morality or the grey areas it entails. Nobody in the world thinks they're evil (well, nobody sane), but when a simple first level spell can just tell them, 'objectively', that they are being evil, that would be the end of it. "Wait, what I'm doing is wrong? Oh dang ..."
The alignment system is an outdated obsolete relic, the equivalent of Saturday Morning Cartoon at best.
I think you're looking at lawful at the wrong perspective, since lawful is comparative to order. Monks live extremely orderly lives, with much structure, more often then not many rules, and patterns of behavior. When it comes to their philosophy, belief, and way of life they are that of rules, discipline, habit, and a strict path to follow... Thus lawful.
I honestly can't understand how this doesn't make sense to you, how you can somehow go forward thinking that monks could be chaotic. A chaotic individual would not be able to live the sort of life that a monk does, having neither the discipline, focus, or state of mind needed for such a path.
I'm not talking about being chaotic. I'm talking about the end result of a character being lawful with respect to the question of being disciplined or not disciplined, and with respect to literally every other aspect of being lawful, doesn't give a damn. A character that is neutral, neutral, neutral, neutral, lawful, neutral, neutral, neutral, neutral, neutral, neutral does not strike me as predominantly lawful. Sure, the Monk's "disciplined" requirement is checked off, but he's still mostly neutral. Let alone what happens when one of those "neutrals" (one of the ones that doesn't intersect or interfere with the aforementioned "disciplined" aspect of the law-chaos axis) actually ends up chaotic. So like I said, either the Monk's "disciplined" aspect is so foolproof that no one (despite their best efforts) could shift a Monk's lawful alignment away from lawful. OR, a Monk can be as disciplined as anyone could possibly be and still get tripped up by something unrelated to the Monk but very related to the entirety of the law-chaos axis.
For example, after the post I quoted above, the conversation turned for a time to the question of envisioning a Monk order devoted to the undoing of all government orders on nothing more than the basis of them being governmental orders. That's not being chaotic. No one needs to be trying to get rid of governments outright to be chaotic. All we need is indifference. Just take a look at the chaotic deities. Desna is not chaotic because she's anti-government. As long as the government in question doesn't infringe on aspects she cares about, they're good to go. Ditto Cayden Cailean. He's pro-freedom and anti-slavery. He is anti-slavery-promoting governments, but the part where they're governments is incidental. Live and let live. Ditto Gorum. Ditto Calistria. They care about pro-chaotic stuff, not anti-government stuff. Heck, even Rovagug isn't especially anti-government. Or rather, he is but only as much as he's anti-everything else.
So there are many facets to a character's position on the law-chaos axis. Discipline is only one. And any other character could be just as disciplined as a Monk, but a GM coming along and deciding that, overall, the character is more neutral or even chaotic (while still acknowledging said non-Monk character's discipline) doesn't result in that character getting hosed. The Monk's alignment requirement, however, drags in all those other non-Monk, non-discipline aspects of lawful behavior. And players get unwarrantedly hosed.
Very well, but it's completely relevant to what I'm arguing against.Congratulations?
Um, thanks?
I had to have him be lawful at the time.So?
So, when the character concept is "disciplined, but otherwise not lawful", having to be lawful doesn't fit the character. At which point, I was sold on this game on being able to play the character I wanted to play, but I can't play that character, so why did I bother to waste my time with this?
Do you habitually envision a character you'd like to play and then slog through playing something else that you had no desire to play? If not, then why would you advocate I do that?
Nothing in the fluff of becoming a wizard would suggest being religious is a problem to learning wizardry. Being chaotic and undisciplined stopping a person from becoming enlightened in the manner of monkhood is part of the fluff both in D&D & PF, and in the media the monk class is based on.OR, I had to bide my time as something unrelated, and then be lawful long enough to retrain everything into Monk. Do you have to be conniving and manipulative to work around the system to play a religious Wizard, even though that's more the Cleric's thing? Do you have to hoodwink the game to play a nature-y themed Bloodrager, even though that's more the Ranger's thing? Why then do I have to reach around my elbow to get to my thumb?
No, being undisciplined contradicts the fluff that the Monk is based on. Being otherwise chaotic doesn't bear one iota. Being undisciplined and chaotic does contradict the D&D and PF Monk, but only because of the artifacts introduced by the addition of the alignment restriction. Remove said restriction, and, while behaving undisciplined may contradict the fluff of the Monk, acting otherwise chaotic has no bearing.
And you're clearly not grokking my main objection. No class, not the Fighter or the Rogue, not the Wizard or the Bloodrager, and not the Monk, no matter what its fluff, needs its concept adhered to in a manner that involves the looming Sword of Damocles that is the potential to lose the ability to express whatever character you wanted to play. This is a game. It should be looked forward to, not dreaded. It should be enjoyed, not suffered.
You interpret the fluff of the Monk as having such discipline as can only be expressed by requiring a completely lawful alignment. As such, you would only have your Monks with a lawful alignment, whether the game had "Monk alignment: any lawful" or "Monk alignment: any". "Monk alignment: any" does not take away from your capacity to play a lawful Monk. If you can play a Fighter who only uses axes without requiring that all Fighters across all of human imagination played by every other player of the game to also only be able to use axes, then you can play a lawful Monk even if Monks could be any alignment.
You want to play your Monks your way. I want you to play your Monks your way. I'm not selfish to insist on the same courtesy.
So I reiterate. Either you're arguing that, for Monks, being disciplined overrides every other conceivable effort a character could put forth towards being chaotic. Or you agree that the Monk's requirement to be disciplined maps poorly to the alignment system and therefore the Monk's lawful requirement brings in unwarranted, extraneous baggage that only serves as a negative.They aren't just "being disciplined" they are being disciplined to the extent that it defines your way of thinking and lifestyle. When you have disciplined yourself to that ridiculous of an extent, you are lawful. Seriously, just start talking about bard or barbarian, your argument becomes a lot more valid in those cases. Monk has a justifiable reason for it's restriction (regardless of whether or not it is negative to the game is a YMMV thing), but Bard and Barbarian don't have any good reason for their restriction.
So the first then. Fine. Play your Monk the way you want under whatever interpretation of how extensive a Monk's discipline goes on the law-chaos axis you believe. English doesn't have words to express how happy I am for you. As a fellow human being worthy of respect who has not spent the last five years kicking puppies, why am I not warranted the same respect?
"Hey, what are you playing?"
"A Fighter."
"19th level, wow. You've been putting a lot of effort into this one."
"Yeah, I'm really looking forward to level 20. Then, I'm going to briefly act lawful enough to get an alignment change, then retrain everything into Monk, and then I'll finally be able to play the character I've been wanting to play since this game started."
"I... you... what?"That's not what I suggesting at all.... Why would the person I'm describing wait to be a monk for so ridiculously long?
"Hey, what are you playing?"
"A 15th Monk with single brawler level."
"Wait I though you were chaotic? Don't you have to be lawful to be a monk?"
"Not exactly. To better reach enlightenment I must become subsumed by discipline, but I'm not a really lawful person. So every now and then I have to return to my ascetic philosophy allowing myself to retrain that stray brawler levels to a monk level."
"Fair enough"
So instead of slogging through what you didn't want to play and switching it to what you did want to play once, you did it in multiple instances. Um, hurrah? That you're still having to do it at all is too much. Whether the player waits nineteen levels to finally switch to what he wanted or if he plays a Monk, stops being lawful and has to continue leveling up with something else until he can hoodwink his GM into thinking he's gone back to lawful and then retraining everything not-Monk into Monk, and back and forth and back and forth, he is still having to connive and manipulate. Which is an undue stress he shouldn't have to put up with.
So, when the character concept is "disciplined, but otherwise not lawful", having to be lawful doesn't fit the character. At which point, I was sold on this game on being able to play the character I wanted to play, but I can't play that character, so why did I bother to waste my time with this?
1. That character concept doesn't require being a monk.
2. That character concept is fine and works in the game as is.3. If you did mean "disciplined but not otherwise not lawful who can increase in enlightenment in the same way as a monk despite that not being enough to increase in enlightment in the way monks are described in this game" maybe you shouldn't come to the game with concept? I mean, people don't complain that the game is being cruel and pulling a "gotcha" on you that can't play otters.
Do you habitually envision a character you'd like to play and then slog through playing something else that you had no desire to play? If not, then why would you advocate I do that?
I advocate you check what the game actually has in it before you declare it's pulling a Gotcha on you. Not all character concepts are applicable to every RPG.
No, being undisciplined contradicts the fluff that the Monk is based on. Being otherwise chaotic doesn't bear one iota. Being undisciplined and chaotic does contradict the D&D and PF Monk, but only because of the artifacts introduced by the addition of the alignment restriction. Remove said restriction, and, while behaving undisciplined may contradict the fluff of the Monk, acting otherwise chaotic has no bearing.
You interpret the fluff of the Monk as having such discipline as can only be expressed by requiring a completely lawful alignment. As such, you would only have your Monks with a lawful alignment, whether the game had "Monk alignment: any lawful" or "Monk alignment: any". "Monk alignment: any" does not take away from your capacity to play a lawful Monk. If you can play a Fighter who only uses axes without requiring that all Fighters across all of human imagination played by every other player of the game to also only be able to use axes, then you can play a lawful Monk even if Monks could be any alignment.
You want to play your Monks your way. I want you to play your Monks your way. I'm not selfish to insist on the same courtesy.
So the first then. Fine. Play your Monk the way you want under whatever interpretation of how extensive a Monk's discipline goes on the law-chaos axis you believe. English doesn't have words to express how happy I am for you. As a fellow human being worthy of respect who has not spent the last five years kicking puppies, why am I not warranted the same respect?
Ugh.... You're really not getting this. No. It's not just "being disciplined". It's defining your entire lifestyle, doctorine and state of mind to discipline. You cannot have that and be chaotic. Okay, to get this example across better, I'm going to change axis. You're complaining that your character concept of "paladin that goes around murdering innocent orphans" isn't allowed. Actually, monk is less restrictive that paladin since you don't lose any powers for not being lawful. It is not just "Lawful, chaotic, chaotic, chaotic, chaotic" = lawful. It's "lawful, lawful, lawful, lawful" = lawful, since if you don't dedicate your lifestyle and your way of thinking to fit into a disciplined manner you don't get your monk powers, that's what the CRB says. If you are disciplined but otherwise you are chaotic, then you aren't disciplined enough to become a monk. Your discipline must consume and infuse every aspect of your being.
And you're clearly not grokking my main objection. No class, not the Fighter or the Rogue, not the Wizard or the Bloodrager, and not the Monk, no matter what its fluff, needs its concept adhered to in a manner that involves the looming Sword of Damocles that is the potential to lose the ability to express whatever character you wanted to play.
*Looks at barbarian, bard, druid, cleric, paladin, monk, hunter, warpriest...* No, there are other classes where you are limited in character concept by fluff.
This is a game. It should be looked forward to, not dreaded. It should be enjoyed, not suffered.
I think you just have to look at what the game allows you to play and accept you cannot play every concept you come up with, since that's impossible for rules heavy game.
So instead of slogging through what you didn't want to play and switching it to what you did want to play once, you did it in multiple instances. Um, hurrah? That you're still having to do it at all is too much. Whether the player waits nineteen levels to finally switch to what he wanted or if he plays a Monk, stops being lawful and has to continue leveling up with something else until he can hoodwink his GM into thinking he's gone back to lawful and then retraining everything not-Monk into Monk, and back and forth and back and forth, he is still having to connive and manipulate. Which is an undue stress he shouldn't have to put up with.
At no point is the character I described not being the character concept they envisioned. They are a monk who's alignment is chaotic. They aren't changing their concept, it's just making a concept that works in the RPG that they are playing. Nothing manipulative about it. Nothing is hoodwinking the GM, you have to go back to
Wow.
I mean, just ... wow.
'Good' and 'Evil' are easier than 'Lawful' and 'Chaotic'; G/E is morality, while L/C is ethics. 'Lawful' as a code of ethics encompasses many things. 'Chaotic' as a code of ethics also encompasses many things. You can possess a core overriding attribute of one - 'self-discipline', as an example for Law, and 'personal choice/free will' as an example for Chaos - while possessing a great many superficial details that suggest/reflect/imply the other.
The Lawful Shoanti monk I play believes in people making their own decisions, going where the spirits or your wanderlust call you, giving momentary vent to your emotions (laughter, anger, etc.) as they occur. He allows no external imposition on his actions that he does not choose to acknowledge, and though he is courteous to those in positions of authority, they have his respect only if they have earned those positions through hardship, strength, and wisdom. Those who argue above might say that these things make him Chaotic; they do not, because his core personality is one of self-discipline. He wakes up at the same time every morning, goes out and practices his bow work (rain/snow/shine/sick/healthy), eats breakfast. The stronger the emotion that flows through him, the less he shows it, as self-discipline is at his core, and rampant strong emotion is the opposite of self-discipline. And once his word is given to do something, his self-discipline holds him to that vow, and you will have to kill him to prevent him from doing it eventually, or taking vengeance on those who prevented him. He looks Chaotic; he is Lawful.
The Chaotic swordsman I play believes in the laws of the society he's in, that committing crimes is wrong, that courtesy and respect are the rightful due of those in higher political, economic, and social positions than he is. He looks both ways before crossing the street, holds both chairs and doors for women (even when the half-orc threatens to break his arm if he does it for her again), and knows sixty-eight seperate styles of bows (with their nigh-infinite variations) for the myriad of social situations he can find himself in. Those who argue above might say that these things make him Lawful; they do not, because his core personality is one of personal choice and free will. He chooses, daily, to obey the laws of society, because he knows that by doing so he can advance himself through it; in general, when he is not observed (or taking down a foe) he's incredibly egalitarian. He chooses, daily, not to commit crimes (even when he knows he could do so without physical consequence), or at least to make sure that what he does is not defined as a crime by the laws of the society in which he lives, because committing an actual crime (i.e. murder in an alley) would hurt his upward mobility (while killing a foe in a formal duel does the opposite). He chooses, daily, to be gallant, because it improves his social standing, and gets him laid; and he chooses to know and use all the social intricacies of bowing, because they give him all sorts of opportunity to be snide, sarcastic, ironic, elegant, sycophantic, and insulting - sometimes all at the same time. He rampages around inside the social structure, obeying and using its laws and strictures because he wants, in the end, to stand at the very unassailable top of the heap and deliberately break every single one of those strictures, rules, and laws in alphabetical order - or at whim. He looks Lawful; he is Chaotic.
Even the books admit that alignment is something that is less in the hands of The Book and very much in the hands of the players and (especially) the GM. So instead of using whiffle bats to try to get each other to say that X means these things and only these things and Y means those things and only those things ...
... why don't y'all just leave it up to the GMs and players? Unless, of course, you want to play in a game together ... and then you'd better listen to your GM ...
All the alignment terms are utterly subjective, for starters, as stated above.
I feel like you can run a pretty good game if you run with "alignment is entirely subjective" and just put everything in terms of the perspective of the person who is making the moral choice. After all, everybody save for the most depraved and one-dimensional villains consider themselves to be good, or at least neutral. Nobody realistically portrayed does anything "for the greater glory of EVIL!" they do it because they think it will result in the best result for those things they happen to care about.
So if you recontextualize alignment to be "within the cultural paradigm that you belong to" it resolves a lot of the problems with the alignment system. All questions of "is it an evil act to murder the goblin children" can be resolved by "were you enculturated to be incredibly racist against goblins?" If you detect evil, you're pinging on those things that your particular ontological framework perceives as evil. Even people who put great stock in to the laws of their homeland aren't necessarily going to be that respectful of the laws of the country their home is currently at war with, since that country is "obviously" full of backwards reprobates.
Mechanically, this requires changing almost nothing about the game, but it solves most of the problems with the alignment system. Your character's alignment is more "how they perceive themselves within their own cultural context" and less "how they are judged by absolute powers."
|
|
The issue is that in D&D and Pathfinder alignment has NEVER been subjective, and that in the settings provided Law/Chaos, Good/Evil as actually forces in the earth, universe and planes.
It doesn't matter if such isn't "realistic" they are as subjective as gravity and very much real. Where Good deities are very much good and Evil Deities are very much evil if all in different ways, and where you can't have two paladins smite each. Sorry to say for those that don't like the idea but alignments are very much NOT subjective.
But even if there is a heaven and a hell (and various things in between) you still can have Miltonesque situations where the denizens of Hell think they're in the right and have been done a great injustice by the universe which they are doing their best to correct. Likewise why can't you have the denizens of Heaven be sanctimonious jerks who are so assured of their righteousness that they don't care who they trample.
There's nothing wrong with having the "Good" deities be wrong, short-sighted, or destructive despite their pleasant demeanor and there's nothing wrong with having the "Evil" deities being thoughtful, measured, and perceptive despite their off-putting mien.
You can have elemental forces labeled "Good" or "Law" but they don't have to have anything to do with conventional notions of those things. Actions perpetrated by "Good" beings can still result in people being worse off and actions perpetrated by "Evil" beings can still result in universally beneficial outcomes. It's the easiest thing in the world to decouple "this God wants this" from "this is good/evil." I mean, I've played at least a half dozen D&D campaigns where the ultimate villain of the campaign was one of the "Good" deities. I mean, how interesting is moral reasoning if one can simply align their compass with some universal force they have access to? That cuts out a lot of interesting stories for no reason.
I mean, if you want your deities to be actual exemplars of abstract notions, you can't have them be characters and I much prefer D&D gods in the vein of classical mythology, where one being can flit from malefactor to savior as the story requires. After all, Loki solved a lot of problems for the Aesir, but he still ends up on the "wrong" side in Ragnarök.
Ultimately, metaphysics are a function of a setting, not the game itself. Every GM should feel emboldened to alter them, since they affect very little on the ground level where the game takes place.
Pathfinder does have rules for subjective morality, but it is a separate set of rules and the normal rules cannot be used to represent it. Evil can think it's right in the default rules, but that's not the same as subjective morality.