I don't think so. The core book is setting and game. The adventure path books will be adventure and crunch. From what little I have seen the hardcovers will be like the core book - setting and mechanics. They are not splitting Starfinder the way they do with Pathfinder.That's disappointing.
I can see that. Although it's not a surprise, they have said from the beginning that Starfinder rules and setting were going to be more intertwined than Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM can do what they want anyway, then they have infinite options, regardless of what the publisher does. Since they're untouchable anyway, the only work that can be done is that which impacts those who aren't untouchable. That's the players. My point is that if we can do nothing for or against one subset of the participants of this game, but we can help another subset (and at the expense of no one but the selfish), then shouldn't we? Great power, great responsibility?Err, no it's not. As I said in the comment you just quoted, that was the point.No, it's not an issue for DMs. That's beside the point.I've ignored alignment restrictions in games that have them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, if your DM says Paladins have to be LG, you can't do anything but be LG if you want to play a paladin in their games. I was talking about what a publisher gives to a DM, not what opportunities a DM gives to a player.
The root of our differing views is that I reject the bolded part of your argument. Whereas it might be significant in terms of resolving issues of player empowerment/disenfranchisement, that isn't relevant to someone in my situation at all (so is ignored in my preferences). There are other reasons (or more 'work to be done') than just resolving binary issues such as alignment pre-requisites. At our table, work resolving things like that is wasted effort and removes flavor which makes the rulebook less useful (to us).
I think the work on flavor is the most important part of a rulebook (I don't really care about mechanics much). So there is plenty of 'work to be done' fleshing that out - as I said way back at the start of the tangent. Rulebooks sans flavor are bland and uninteresting to me - the most important part of Paizo's rulebooks, the way I use them, are where they provide connections to the game world. Alignment restrictions, clerics needing deities, demihuman level limits for various classes and so forth are part of that desirable element of a rulebook.
When he's making a deliberate choice to do so, yes. What about when he doesn't care either way, and just leaves it as is because it's less work? Or when he hears both sides for or against taking alignment out, but doesn't realize the inherent selfishness of mandatory alignment (in that it never helps the player who wants to be restricted because he can be restricted by his own power but only hurts other players)?But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.
I don't think a rulebook is going to protect you from selfish DMs or DMs who aren't interested in running a game you're interested in playing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.DMs with definitive preferences and DMs who understand the game well will add or remove restrictions as per their prerogative. However, there are a considerable number of DMs who more or less go with whatever restrictions exist in print for various reasons, and may even defend those restrictions without really understanding them.
D&D has been very instructive on this topic, as each new edition loosens the traditional restrictions a little bit more, putting the onus more and more on the traditionalists to justify those restrictions when these type of debates come up. Looking back at my years at the game table, I also think that the changing trend playing out (literally) is interesting. I started with 2e, where alignment restrictions are even stricter than in 3.x, then moved on to 3.x, then to 4e. Haven't played 5e, but as I understand it 5e has followed in 4e's footsteps when it comes to alignment restrictions.
I'm sure there are a few 4e and 5e DMs who rule that rogues can't be LG or that druids must be TN or whatever, but my experience has been that when the shoe is on the other foot -- when pro-restriction DMs must justify those restrictions without the implicit support of the printed rules, rather than when pro-freedom players must find DMs happy discard those printed rules -- the whole issue more or less evaporates. Players who want to play LG rogues or NG druids can roleplay their characters as they see fit, and DMs who truly dislike like the new freedoms tend to stick with an earlier edition.
I agree with everything you say here. My view is this isn't a problem - this is the RPG world being richer than it was 'back in the day'.
There are many more games to play and more styles being supported than there used to be. The key is to find a group who want to play the way you want to (and I think the DM is a key plaer in that dynamic when it comes to D&D-ish type games).
I fully understand those who think rulebooks should be neutral flavor-wise and as broad as possible to enable groups to build a plethora of styles. That is a fine and reasonable aesthetic preference. It just doesn't work for me - when I buy a rulebook I'm more interested in the flavor than in the mechanics. So a rulesystem with none of those elements (and I essentially equate flavor of this nature with mechanical restrictions) is a weaker system.
For someone who uses rules the way I do, a system including alignment which then makes a choice 'Is this pure flavor or is it relevant mechanically?' is not making a terribly important or significant choice - it doesn't really matter which way it goes on that spectrum, what's important to me is that it takes a view - I want to know about how morality is in this fantasy world - is it objective and concrete or is it more analogous to morality in the real world? Learning that monks have to be lawful is the kind of information I find of interest - not their save progression (or whatever).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a rulebook that's flavorful and having a rulebook that doesn't needlessly and arbitrarily hamstring a player's ability to express certain character concepts aren't mutually exclusive things though.
Perhaps. I personally can't think of one with appealing flavor which didn't restrict character options in substantial ways (I'd be curious to hear some examples though, if any immediately spring to mind).
Bear in mind though, I'm expressing an aesthetic preference - I'm not arguing for how things "should" be, just how I like them. In my opinion, Paizo would sell more books if they stuck closer to Tectorman's ideal than to mine.
The following is just my opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong. Time will tell.
As I see it, Paizo has 3 options:
1) Release a new edition of Pathfinder. Bad because they will lose part of their customer base, who won't convert over. Good because they can consolidate most of the existing setting books and quickly get the setting information out. However, they're going to be competing with Pathfinder 1E, and WotC can tell you how hard competing with your own product can bite you.
2) Abandon Pathfinder for Starfinder and similar games. They're still going to lose customers, but they won't compete with 5E and can write entirely new setting books so they're not repeating products. However, they also will be walking away from a product that made them and that will damage their reputation.
3) Pull a GURPS and just keep releasing more products. They're still going to lose customers eventually, just due to bloat. They also risk falling to same fate as GURPS, which is being relegated to the oldtimers and the dregs of the internet (most GURPS players I've met hang out on 4chan).
I don't see Paizo as having a good option here. I don't see them as having an option that isn't going to hurt. I think it's up to them to pick which bad option they can live with.
there are never any option that "won't hurt"
1) and kinda 3) they could have another system without stopping current Pathfinder or stopping Starfinder, that might even give them some fans back and bring new ones, problem is, it would require more people to work on it, and less "cross systems" staffers.
I honestly suspect they're just going to pull 2) and not say anything until it's obvious.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rumors: a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
Emphasis uncertain or doubtful.
That's more optimistic than a few rumors going around, but that would fit with some of those rumors.I honestly suspect they're just going to pull 2) and not say anything until it's obvious.The following is just my opinion. It could be right, it could be wrong. Time will tell.
As I see it, Paizo has 3 options:
1) Release a new edition of Pathfinder. Bad because they will lose part of their customer base, who won't convert over. Good because they can consolidate most of the existing setting books and quickly get the setting information out. However, they're going to be competing with Pathfinder 1E, and WotC can tell you how hard competing with your own product can bite you.
2) Abandon Pathfinder for Starfinder and similar games. They're still going to lose customers, but they won't compete with 5E and can write entirely new setting books so they're not repeating products. However, they also will be walking away from a product that made them and that will damage their reputation.
3) Pull a GURPS and just keep releasing more products. They're still going to lose customers eventually, just due to bloat. They also risk falling to same fate as GURPS, which is being relegated to the oldtimers and the dregs of the internet (most GURPS players I've met hang out on 4chan).
I don't see Paizo as having a good option here. I don't see them as having an option that isn't going to hurt. I think it's up to them to pick which bad option they can live with.
there are never any option that "won't hurt"
1) and kinda 3) they could have another system without stopping current Pathfinder or stopping Starfinder, that might even give them some fans back and bring new ones, problem is, it would require more people to work on it, and less "cross systems" staffers.
They're talented people. They didn't get Pathfinder as popular as it is or keep it going this long by being hacks. They've made a couple of mistakes here or there, but nothing that should impact Pathfinder much. And they know their business, their customer base, and their industry.
And even if Paizo went bankrupt tomorrow, I fully expect to hear all of them being employed and working on big projects by Wednesday. They haven't pulled what Monte Cook or Skip Williams did, and even WotC would benefit massively from employing the Paizo crew. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC has already made a few overtures towards stealing Paizo staff.
I'm confident the Paizo crew will be putting their names on RPG books for some time to come.
|
Yes. Flipping through the AE, I see Bestiary 2 and APG. Basically, the hardbacks at the time.
Ok, didn't know that. But do you think that AE is harder to play through because of those additions? I wouldn't know but I remember the Runelords obituary being quite full already before the Pathfinder update, so I think it had generally more to do with the approach on encounter design, that seemed to me a bit more comparable to Shackled City and Age of Worms than later APs. Though even then, I remember thinking that well, in comparison to CS and AoW, RotRL didn't seem so hard to beat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was brutal in the original because Richard Pett wrote the second module and they had to tone down his tactics in the AE.
It should also be noted Bestiary 3 is also used, but the reason why it's mostly Bestiary 1 and 2 is because a lot of monsters originally introduced in the AP were updated in those Bestiaries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a rulebook that's flavorful and having a rulebook that doesn't needlessly and arbitrarily hamstring a player's ability to express certain character concepts aren't mutually exclusive things though.Perhaps. I personally can't think of one with appealing flavor which didn't restrict character options in substantial ways (I'd be curious to hear some examples though, if any immediately spring to mind).
Personally I enjoyed 3.x more than 2e and 4e more than 3.x, and they haven't lost anything I miss flavor-wise on the player-side. I do think that each new edition has drifted further from the very flavorful monster descriptions that can be such a joy to read, with their relatively extravagant entries dedicated to monster societies and ecologies. But of course, that has nothing to do with level caps or alignment restrictions.
Bear in mind though, I'm expressing an aesthetic preference - I'm not arguing for how things "should" be, just how I like them. In my opinion, Paizo would sell more books if they stuck closer to Tectorman's ideal than to mine.
This certainly seems to be the way D&D and D&D-alikes are going, except probably the OSR.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does taking alignment out of the default game change those outcomes?
It doesn't , and that was my point, because you said that taking alignment out of the system wouldn't negatively impact anyone. But it does. And it's simply not true that it does it only to selfish players.
RPG line hardcover will have rules and setting stuff and crunch, the AP will have adventure and setting crunch with maybe a bit of rule crunch when needed.I can see that. Although it's not a surprise, they have said from the beginning that Starfinder rules and setting were going to be more intertwined than Pathfinder.I don't think so. The core book is setting and game. The adventure path books will be adventure and crunch. From what little I have seen the hardcovers will be like the core book - setting and mechanics. They are not splitting Starfinder the way they do with Pathfinder.That's disappointing.
"While there will be occasional rules supplements like bestiaries, the Starfinder Adventure Path will be a primary vector for new rules and setting information."
That was in the "what we have told you so far" blog post. The hardocvers they mention felt like Bestiaries and such (to me) rather than full on rulebooks like APG.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I enjoyed 3.x more than 2e and 4e more than 3.x, and they haven't lost anything I miss flavor-wise on the player-side.
To me the experience was the opposite, but that may have to do with the fact that, as far as rules go, a lot of the flavor a ruleset has comes out of (quirky) subsystems. I know that a lot of people seem to be able to separate rules design from flavor, but I'm not one of them. So as far as my own preferences go, elegant, streamlined systems kinda suck.
|
Balance is subject, but it's also very circumstantial, especially based on the particular style of game a given group or DM runs.Balance is Objective, circumstantial balance can be Subjective.
A good deal of PF balance issues come from circumstancial balance... and if the DM/GM need to cheat with the rolls to balance things out...
I think the underlying point/problem is that these is no "right way" to play the game. There is no true baseline. There are a lot of factors that if done more or less than the non-existent "norm" can alter the objective/subjective/circumstantial evidence one way or the other.
For instance, if a DM runs more encounters per day than # without giving rest time to reset abilities that work off of a per day mechanic, classes like Fighters, Rogues, and Monks, whose abilities tend to be all day, any day become a lot stronger. They only really need to stop when HP starts to drop, (or perhaps status effects make it difficult), however, if there is easy access to say Wands of CLW or Infernal Healing, assuming they have a few minutes break in between encounters, they can just keep going and going.
In that sort of scenario, generally casters tend to significantly drop in power and/or versatility. The issue is, that that # of encounters per adventure is not a hard rule, but a general guideline and assumption, and going above it is not "wrong".
Similarly, if the group generally does less encounters than that "norm", casters have a lot more chance to always bring out their big guns and the style favors them.
Also, I just want to be clear. I am not accusing anyone of cheating. Firstly, because as I said, everything was behind a screen, and I don't know, but also because it was simply a trend I saw. Being one of the few casters at that table, I had very little evidence outside of what I saw happen, which could be a little bias (remembering more often all the times it failed rather than when they didn't).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a rulebook that's flavorful and having a rulebook that doesn't needlessly and arbitrarily hamstring a player's ability to express certain character concepts aren't mutually exclusive things though.Perhaps. I personally can't think of one with appealing flavor which didn't restrict character options in substantial ways (I'd be curious to hear some examples though, if any immediately spring to mind).Personally I enjoyed 3.x more than 2e and 4e more than 3.x, and they haven't lost anything I miss flavor-wise on the player-side. I do think that each new edition has drifted further from the very flavorful monster descriptions that can be such a joy to read, with their relatively extravagant entries dedicated to monster societies and ecologies. But of course, that has nothing to do with level caps or alignment restrictions.
Bear in mind though, I'm expressing an aesthetic preference - I'm not arguing for how things "should" be, just how I like them. In my opinion, Paizo would sell more books if they stuck closer to Tectorman's ideal than to mine.This certainly seems to be the way D&D and D&D-alikes are going, except probably the OSR.
Yeah, me too. I differ from you in that I generally prefer the older systems to the newer. (Though we pretty much exclusively play 5E now).
It seems to me that tectorman's approach is more widely preferred nowadays (although paizo's change in focus in the RPG line and the way they're releasing Starfinder gives me some hope that things might shift more the way I like them).
How does taking alignment out of the default game change those outcomes?It doesn't , and that was my point, because you said that taking alignment out of the system wouldn't negatively impact anyone. But it does. And it's simply not true that it does it only to selfish players.
Taking alignment out doesn't negatively impact anyone. What you're talking about isn't a GM being negatively impacted by taking alignment out. Yes, he's being negatively impacted, but not due to the presence or absence of alignment. His issue is that he wants a game with alignment and one or more of his players doesn't. That issue happens with or without alignment in the game and therefore is independent of what the producers do or don't do. They are complete non-entities in this.
Let me put it this way: if this hypothetical GM wanted to run a game with alignment but couldn't because his car wouldn't start and he couldn't get to his FLGS, then he would likewise be negatively impacted. You would be correct to describe him thusly. But we're obviously not going to lay his broken down car at the publisher's feet, right? Unless one of the publishers sabotaged this guy's car, then it would be incorrect to blame his inability to run a game with alignment on the actions or inactions of the publisher, regardless of how legitimate it is to state that he has been negatively impacted (because he has).
And if so, then we likewise cannot consider the difficulties of the GM in your scenario to be due to the publisher taking alignment out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM can do what they want anyway, then they have infinite options, regardless of what the publisher does. Since they're untouchable anyway, the only work that can be done is that which impacts those who aren't untouchable. That's the players. My point is that if we can do nothing for or against one subset of the participants of this game, but we can help another subset (and at the expense of no one but the selfish), then shouldn't we? Great power, great responsibility?Err, no it's not. As I said in the comment you just quoted, that was the point.No, it's not an issue for DMs. That's beside the point.I've ignored alignment restrictions in games that have them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, if your DM says Paladins have to be LG, you can't do anything but be LG if you want to play a paladin in their games. I was talking about what a publisher gives to a DM, not what opportunities a DM gives to a player.
The root of our differing views is that I reject the bolded part of your argument. Whereas it might be significant in terms of resolving issues of player empowerment/disenfranchisement, that isn't relevant to someone in my situation at all (so is ignored in my preferences). There are other reasons (or more 'work to be done') than just resolving binary issues such as alignment pre-requisites. At our table, work resolving things like that is wasted effort and removes flavor which makes the rulebook less useful (to us).
I think the work on flavor is the most important part of a rulebook (I don't really care about mechanics much). So there is plenty of 'work to be done' fleshing that out - as I said way back at the start of the tangent. Rulebooks sans flavor are bland and uninteresting to me - the most important part of Paizo's rulebooks, the way I use them, are where they provide connections to the game world. Alignment restrictions, clerics needing deities, demihuman level limits for various classes and so forth are part of that desirable element of a rulebook.
None of which I object to as long as the rulebook in question presents it as tendencies or suggestions or whatever phrasing you wish that allows players to take it or leave it. It's when it's presented as a hard and fast rule that must be adhered to or must be explicitly changed that I feel the rulebook oversteps its bounds and creates the situation I described where the selfish are favored over the disenfranchised.
As others have said, there are plenty of RPGs that create that flavor as something to be used rather than something imposed. I don't object to the flavor. I object to the imposing.
I don't think a rulebook is going to protect you from selfish DMs or DMs who aren't interested in running a game you're interested in playing.When he's making a deliberate choice to do so, yes. What about when he doesn't care either way, and just leaves it as is because it's less work? Or when he hears both sides for or against taking alignment out, but doesn't realize the inherent selfishness of mandatory alignment (in that it never helps the player who wants to be restricted because he can be restricted by his own power but only hurts other players)?But for players who don't buy into alignment restrictions, then it becomes very crucial whether those restrictions are in the game or not, because if they are, then the player is only left with his choice of which sucky option does he want to settle for.If you're a player who doesn't like alignment restriction, the key for you is to find a DM who is happy to run a game without. It really doesn't matter what the game system says as the DM will add them in or take them out as per the game they want to run.
No, but it creates a disincentive to be selfish. And while I obviously accept that no rulebook can mind-control a GM into running a game a certain way, what I find unacceptable is the paradigm where those who just want to play the characters they want to play have to fight an uphill battle to do so while the selfish don't have to lift a finger to play the way they want to play (again, not talking about them playing their characters their way, but them doing so AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS). It should take more effort to be a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pssh Dnd has had alt rule books since AD&D I have a friend who has one.
I didn't play 2nd but I would assume. 3rd definitely had one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever the past editions of the Brand, RiFTS, GuRPs, Hero, M&M, and other RPGS have done, the one thing that is constant is a better consolidation of the rules and, usually, a more organized layout than before. There are exceptions to this, RiFTs tends to get scattered about with varying aspects of the same rules, which newer editions didn't solve.
When 4venture (remember that advertising?) came out, it was already being panned before the books were out, as 3.5 was still being played and was still fresh in a lot of hobbiest's minds. The overall handling of the exterior contracts, and how they ended, was poorly received by companies and players alike. I still miss CMP and wish they could have gotten their new engine for a character maker made before they lost E-Tools.
So, Paizo had the mags taken away in favor of inhouse Online zines. They begin APs (Rise of the Runelords, to be specific) and already have this Pathfinder world that was created for a contest (Eborron won) and a whole lot of background already created for it. We all know what happened after that. Welcome home, 3.75.
Well, with the Pathfinder world and the OGL, the 3.9 system is going along well. The advent of time and competition will, however, make the advent of a new, modernized and cleaned up version of the Pathfinder ruleset a necessity. PF ver2 is a reality at some point, and what happens with it should be something that is more then a facelift and cleaned up formats. It needs to be tightened up, mechanics need to be made more universal to the classes in general, some sacred cows need to be gone, and a new OGL for the system needs details for the third party companies to keep support it like they do now.
A change like this will come with apprehension and some will not like it even before they see the new rulebook(s). For me, Paizo will not make the same mistake as others have made in the past, and will produce a quality product that will merit the changes that will be made within the pages.
Uh that alt-rule books are pretty standard...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
before a new edition comes out?....
In general.
For godsake, 3.5e had variant rules all throughout the DMG. Is it really that surprising that sometimes people just go "Hey. All of our groups have houserules, why don't we write some down."
Often I find Unchained's/Mirror's/Unearthed Arcana's to be the best books actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh that alt-rule books are pretty standard...before a new edition comes out?....
Not necessarily no the one from 1st as far as i know predated 2nd by a bit. I think unearthed arcana in 3rd was followed by at least a year to two years worth of books. Ill look it up real quick yes so unearthed arcana came out in 2004 (which was a book of all optional ruleslike the unchained book) monster manual 5 in 2007 that is a pretty good gap there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
His issue is that he wants a game with alignment and one or more of his players doesn't.
Thing is, we don't talk about this in a very abstract way on a strict theoretical basis. We're talking about Pathfinder/D&D and that had alignment nearly from the beginning. So chances are, that for this GM, alignment might be one of the reasons they chose this system, so taking it out is not independent of the producers at all. That issue will simply not happen to them as long as the designers don't change it. If they do, they are in fact sabotaging his car, so he would be very right to blame them for it.
It's easy as that: if you don't like alignment, go find a GM who doesn't care about it either. Or go play another game.
Or advocate for taking alignment out of the system, but in this case, be honest about it and don't pretend that such a change wouldn't probably negatively impact other players who like to have alignment in their game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and already have this Pathfinder world that was created for a contest (Eborron won)
This is the first time I hear someone say this, so do you have any sources for that? Because as I remember it, they basically made the world from scratch (with heavy influences from their homebrew settings that partly predated this contest for dunno more than ten years).
But I never heard about Golarion being part of this contest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the first time I hear someone say this, so do you have any sources for that? Because as I remember it, they basically made the world from scratch (with heavy influences from their homebrew settings that partly predated this contest for dunno more than ten years).
But I never heard about Golarion being part of this contest.
I'd find it surprising if it was part of the contest because as far as I'm aware, all the submissions ended up being legally owned by WotC and you cannot publish them in the future without permission from WotC (Rich Burlew can't talk about his setting because it was submitted the contest for example).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd find it surprising if it was part of the contest because as far as I'm aware, all the submissions ended up being legally owned by WotC and you cannot publish them in the future without permission from WotC (Rich Burlew can't talk about his setting because it was submitted the contest for example).
That's what I thought as well though I'm not sure if that goes for all entries or only for the semi-finalists.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I enjoy most about Paizo is their nods to D&D legacy. They could have stripped alignment out, or dropped vancian casting, but they didn't because they like it that way. Which always surprises me when folks think Paizo wants to toss out these ideas, but cant because they are chained to OGL/3E. Even more surprising is all the calls of necessity to drop these things or Paizo will shutter their doors. Been hearing those calls since before 2009.
I like alignment not only in concept, but also having it tied to mechanics. I know this is a very polarizing game element and many would like to see it go. Thing is, alignment is more than a simple label on a character sheet for a lot of folks. You strip out those mechanics and a person like myself has three choices; either go without alignment rules, forget about alignment rules, or stick with an older system. Sure I could add them back into the new system, but that would be a lot of work. Really a balancing nightmare in a system that wasn't developed with it in mind. I'd consider that a negative impact.
I'd like folks to reconsider this position that finding D&D legacy elements as selfish. It all comes down to preference and everyone has their own. Calls for removal of alignment and vancian casting as incompatible with modern design I believe lacks imagination, but I would stop short of accusing someone of being selfish for asking for their removal. Could we aim for a more inclusive environment instead of a competitive one? I think a modular system built to add or drop legacy elements easily, would be idea for everyone. That would be my preference.
|
|
I don't dislike alignments. Just how the system is implemented. Even if the next PF 2.0. keeps it and I'm sure it will. They need to be defined properly imo. With one can or cannot do in point form. Can Alignment XYZ take prisoners yes or no. Steal from others yes or no. Leaving it too open ended like now or worse in the hands of the DM tends to cause more problems then it solves imo. The Palladium system with it's rules I almost never had a problem with alignment because it tells both players and DMs flayt out what a alignment can do. So those who played Lawful good either in a very poor way or like Dirty Harry. either adapted to the alignment system or left the table.
If it's like the current one then they might as well just keep doing unchained books and not waste time with any new edition. A new edition is meant to solve problems not port them over with better layout and cover art. Even if it's not a new edition the devs know better. Their is NO excuse for issues such as alignments problems, Imbalances with classes, poorly worded text etc. Leave it unchanged if they must but please fix and streamline what we have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don't want a menu telling me what actions fall where on the wheel. That I can work out at the table and am fine with a rulings over rules aspect. I was speaking more to planar outsiders, spells, and magic items.
If actions are open to interpretation, it all falls back to DM and this causes issues.
In a system where every single thing is defined by a rule, and you can build something RAW and you WILL know how it's going to work, adding open Alignments causes problems.I'd really love to play a Paladin, but since I don't know this DM I can't. Why? Lawful Stupid Paladin, more focus on the good or lawful side?
There are TONS en thread about Paladin interpretation of her actions.
How much does casting Evil spells Shift you? Too many option open imo.
Also, I don't know other system of casting spells, but I bet there are many.
Also new edition needs to tone down Magic Power.
Finally, revised economy would be awesome, giving Martials something more cool than "I just moved and lost all my attacks"
|
|
Yeah I don't want a menu telling me what actions fall where on the wheel. That I can work out at the table and am fine with a rulings over rules aspect. I was speaking more to planar outsiders, spells, and magic items.
I rather have a menu telling me what i can do. It less headaches and less issues at the table. I get the point your trying to make. Open to interpretation just causes too many more problems then it solves. Either we have players who either don't know how to play their alignment properly. Or DMs who think their way and only their way is the right way to play a alignment. Why leave a system that causes more problems than it solves in place. It's not just Lawful Stupid. Chaotic Neutral seems to be the outlet for too many anarchist like minded players. At worse make it a optional system. Traditional open ended system. With a optional what one can do in point form. Yes the DM can adjucate alignment issues. Yet they have enough to do and should be focusing on running the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a group that is willing to think about, yet cannot agree on what alignments mean (or at least have a productive and interesting discussion) it's probably better off not using alignment with that group.
A table that tells you what is/is not acceptable within a given alignment is something I would rule 0 out of existence so fast that I might fail to check the other side of the page to see if "ripping it out of the book entirely" would eliminate something I want on the other side of the page.
|
|
Yeah I don't want a menu telling me what actions fall where on the wheel. That I can work out at the table and am fine with a rulings over rules aspect. I was speaking more to planar outsiders, spells, and magic items.I rather have a menu telling me what i can do. It less headaches and less issues at the table. I get the point your trying to make. Open to interpretation just causes too many more problems then it solves. Either we have players who either don't know how to play their alignment properly. Or DMs who think their way and only their way is the right way to play a alignment. Why leave a system that causes more problems than it solves in place. It's not just Lawful Stupid. Chaotic Neutral seems to be the outlet for too many anarchist like minded players. At worse make it a optional system. Traditional open ended system. With a optional what one can do in point form. Yes the DM can adjucate alignment issues. Yet they have enough to do and should be focusing on running the game.
IDK, if you make a menu then people will get cute cutting corners and will create an entirely new type of headache thread and argument. I agree with possiblecabbage if alignment is more trouble then its worth for you, then your table ought to drop the module. (which I would make easy to do with a PF 2.0)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with a more strict menu of "option X is evil, option Y is not", it's impossible to ever actually codify every possible scenario. There is always going to be a degree of GM fiat involved, especially when dealing with a concept which is backed by thousands of years of philosophical debate.
As for problems with alignment, I would actually argue that a lot of the problems are more player/GM issues. Getting rid of alignment won't solve those underlying problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even with a more strict menu of "option X is evil, option Y is not", it's impossible to ever actually codify every possible scenario. There is always going to be a degree of GM fiat involved, especially when dealing with a concept which is backed by thousands of years of philosophical debate.
As for problems with alignment, I would actually argue that a lot of the problems are more player/GM issues. Getting rid of alignment won't solve those underlying problems.
I will make an example.
Should a Paladin be more Lawful or Good? Where do you draw the line?
Most actions are only on 1 axis, not both, so you could be doing good but being chaotic.
How many times can a Paladin stop being Lawful and being Good before falling?
Besides that, I'd like less spells or specialized casters. If you're Blaster your capacity for Crowd Control is limited, cost you more and you can't do it.
Martials have to specialize while Casters can be everything all the time, and in my opinion this isn't fair.
Something needs to be done with magic.
Let's not even get into useless Feats.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with a more strict menu of "option X is evil, option Y is not", it's impossible to ever actually codify every possible scenario. There is always going to be a degree of GM fiat involved, especially when dealing with a concept which is backed by thousands of years of philosophical debate.
As for problems with alignment, I would actually argue that a lot of the problems are more player/GM issues. Getting rid of alignment won't solve those underlying problems.
I will make an example.
Should a Paladin be more Lawful or Good? Where do you draw the line?
Most actions are only on 1 axis, not both, so you could be doing good but being chaotic.
How many times can a Paladin stop being Lawful and being Good before falling?
That's actually called out in the Paladin class, they auto-Fall if they willingly perform an Evil act. No such clause for performing Chaotic acts.
They would fall though if they performed enough Chaotic acts that their Alignment shifted from LG though.
|
|
The issue and granted it's mostly a player one imo. Is to avoid having those who play classes tied to alignments going "well you can't do that your not playing your alignement". If it's okay for say a CG to steal gold from someone only for a good cause. Instead of being told they are not properly playing their alignment they can instead respond by saying they are. With the current system it's unclear and left too open ended imo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If actions are open to interpretation, it all falls back to DM and this causes issues.
In a system where every single thing is defined by a rule, and you can build something RAW and you WILL know how it's going to work, adding open Alignments causes problems.
I've never seen it this way, but then I also tend to see "rules" as options and "RAW" had never had any real meaning in my group above being the standard option normally taken if you don't like other options more.
Often I find Unchained's/Mirror's/Unearthed Arcana's to be the best books actually.
I'm in the same boat actually and add to that 3pp stuff, and you have a legion of different rules options to choose from. Meaning that in the end, everything about the system is open to discussion, so that part of this system is open to interpretation (and I would claim that this does not only is the case for alignment but for quite some other things as well; that's why there are som many questions about rules applications, after all) was never irritating for me.
But then I grew up with systems where much less stuff was hardwired with rules and you basically had a lot of stuff to make up for yourself, so I don't expect(or need) a rules system doing that for me. It's nice to have a standard suggestion how to go about something, though.