Ok, exactly what aspect of alignment does this hypothetical GM want?Oh, dunno, let's talk about me instead of this hypothetical GM. What I want, for example, is alignment spells as hardwired in the rules; the possibility to fall with having actual mechanical effects. The possibility of alignment shift in general, and the stories that come out of it. Not to speak of the existence of alignment planes and deities in D&D/PF, which is something that I actually love very much, for example and which makes no sense if alignment not exists. The whole story of the Golarion cosmology depends on it very much.
I grew up with the stories by Michael Moorcock. the eternal war between Chaos and Law. That you have something similar in D&D was one of the things which attracted me to the system very much. There are enough games out there that have no alignment, so I have no need for a D&D without it (it's actually the same with Vancian casting). In fact, I think that alignment is something very essential to D&D, so take it out of the game and it isn't D&D anymore.
As an aside, in 4E they didn't do away with alignment completely, so I'm not sure why this is even brought up here. I'm also not saying that it can't be changed or even improved upon. But do completely away with it, and you lose something that makes you stand up from the crowd.
By the way, I already allowed non-LG-paladins in my own games and did away with other alignment restrictions to accomodate a player's wish, so it's not about shutting players down at all. It's about having an established standard how the world functions and making clear that if you're anyhow playing against this standard, that you're an exception to the rule.
So never mind the hypothetical DM, you're looking for alignment as an aspect of how the world works. Both on a cosmic scale and how the typical inhabitants of the world behave. And you're fine with the players not being subject to those paradigms.
Okay, give me two seconds.
"Paladin. Alignment: Any, though most are lawful good."
"Monk. Alignment: Any, though most are lawful."
"Druid. Alignment: Any, though most are neutral on at least one axis."
There you go. We have how things typically are, and the players are left alone. Heck, we can even go a step further.
"Paladin. Alignment: Lawful good (player characters are not subject to this restriction)."
"Monk. Alignment: Any lawful (player characters are not subject to this restriction)."
And so forth. That establishes how the world typically works while leaving the players alone and should cover all your needs without giving selfish players of the game the license they've previously had to be bullies.
With the possible exception of reproducing the process by which your players were able to get out from under the oppression of the game's default restrictions, since I don't know what sort of negotiating they had to do to get to that point. Actually, scratch that because it doesn't even matter how much or how little negotiating there was because any at all is still too much. If the players of this hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0 game have to do any negotiating, then it means they're starting at a place where they're not wanted. The game is telling them they're unwelcome and should step off. No matter how quick a GM may be to turn around and say "Sure you can play 'blah'; pay that part of the game no mind", the game itself is starting with a giant raised middle finger aimed right at the player, telling them what's BadWrongFun and what the One True Way is.
You're enamored by the cosmology and the cosmic figures and deities of the Golarion setting? You think those elements contribute to an intriguing world to set adventures in? So do I! I'd love to be able to find a Pathfinder game without having all this strife associated with the process. But I'm turned away at the door, told to go do anatomically uncomfortable things with myself, and I haven't kicked nearly enough puppies to have this kind of crap coming to me.
Like the whole idea that some guy I've never met before who lives a thousand miles away should be in charge of what character concepts are acceptable and which aren't even in a setting neutral context is really sort of silly.I'm not quite sure about what you mean with that. So just for clarification: If I offer to run a game, maybe even let the players choose which setting we'll use, but then expect them to play characters which would be "realistic" for the chosen setting, would that be acceptable to you? Or, if you want to go against setting expectations, that I would want you to clear that with me and the other players beforehand; still acceptable?
Just asking because I'm not running "setting neutral" games.
He's probably talking about how, while Golarion is a specific setting and has certain character concepts that don't work within the lore of that setting, Pathfinder is not a specific setting. And therefore, while Golarion can say "no concept Clerics, only lawful good Paladins, no nonlawful ki-using Monks", and so forth, Pathfinder doesn't have the right to do so. And the designers should not be painting Pathfinder with Golarion's brush.
I.e., suppose I'm making a hypothetical game system for multiple settings, one of which is Star Wars, another of which is Marvel, and I explicitly advertise this game system as meant for more than just the material that I'm putting out. Do I establish in the core rules that casting lightning is bad? It is in Star Wars, so it's okay to slap that into the default rules, right? Or do I not get to say that just because Emperor Palpatine is evil and uses lightning that Storm and Thor must also be evil because they use lightning?
The guy that Swoosh has never met that he's saying shouldn't have a say in what character concepts are and aren't acceptable within the realm of all human imagination (Pathfinder, which is not Golarion) put together is the developer, not you.
Swoosh, do I have that right?
I don't think it's so much that "alignment adds nothing to games" but that "alignment is objective and knowable to people in the world" tends to detract from games. Ethical questions are only interesting, after all, if they are hard to answer. When alignment is an elemental force, someone wanting to know what the "good" thing to do can either consult with various detectors for elemental forces -or- we've decoupled "good" from "that which is most desirable" so it means something very different in the game sense than the common language use of the term.
I don't think the issue is so much "there's objective morality" so much as "it's knowable and discoverable" and in fact game mechanics are based on it.
I mean, the basic question that has motivated countless people for thousands of years is "Am I good?" is not a thing that should be so trivially resolved.
Exactly this. This is why alignment isn't something that sets the games that use it apart but rather something that sets them back. Ultimate good, ultimate evil, and where the dividing lines are? Almost all of human history has tried to nail this down, and we still barely have a clue. Heck, I'm arguing against alignment restrictions from the standpoint of their imposition equating to selfishness and there are still arguments that it is selfish (which still boggles my mind; I'm essentially calling water 'wet').
It's not that these can't be objective universal forces within the game world. It's that these things are not and cannot be things that can be knowable and definable and (most importantly) limitable by the mortal mind. Any mortal mind. Ultimate cosmic morality is not a thing that should ever have the potential of being boiled down to a computer code.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're already well into 2.0, they just didn't reboot the product lines to do it.
It feels more like a 1.5 than 2.0. And frankly I am fine with it.
No core mechanic has changed in the game. Just balance tweaks, wich I may or may not disagree with, and clarifications.
Things like, for example, giving everyone and their mothers Expertise, Power Attack and deadly Aim to reduce feat taxes to martial classes would seems like something easy to implement and convert.
A tweat in favor of the martials, but not something that strains the systems.
Also, in these kind of case, I would like that they would errata/fix one-shot material. You know the stuff that would never be reprinted to suit the case. You know a living documentfor updating stuff and a guide book for DiY in case of other publishers stuff, not updated yet material, vintage printings.
Humbly,
Yawar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's so much that "alignment adds nothing to games" but that "alignment is objective and knowable to people in the world" tends to detract from games. Ethical questions are only interesting, after all, if they are hard to answer. When alignment is an elemental force, someone wanting to know what the "good" thing to do can either consult with various detectors for elemental forces -or- we've decoupled "good" from "that which is most desirable" so it means something very different in the game sense than the common language use of the term.
I don't think the issue is so much "there's objective morality" so much as "it's knowable and discoverable" and in fact game mechanics are based on it.
I mean, the basic question that has motivated countless people for thousands of years is "Am I good?" is not a thing that should be so trivially resolved.
When you say "should" is there a reason other than preference?
Personally, I agree with the stance that a game is better if its model of morality is subjective (although I disagree with the position that this implies it "should" have no mechanical impact), nonetheless I can appreciate a viewpoint that holds RPGs are better if there is no moral ambiguity or shades of grey. I don't think there's ever a way a game "should" be designed - it depends on who you are trying to entertain and that isn't a moral question.
I gave the analogy of a first person shooter upthread - I think there are some forms of entertainment where a black-and-white morality is fine or even desirable. I know a couple of people for whom RPGs are squarely in this camp and whilst I think they're missing out, I don't think they're wrong.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, give me two seconds.
"Paladin. Alignment: Any, though most are lawful good."
"Monk. Alignment: Any, though most are lawful."
"Druid. Alignment: Any, though most are neutral on at least one axis."
There you go. We have how things typically are, and the players are left alone. Heck, we can even go a step further.
"Paladin. Alignment: Lawful good (player characters are not subject to this restriction)."
"Monk. Alignment: Any lawful (player characters are not subject to this restriction)."
I would probably be very comfortable with the first option. With the second, not so much, because I don't believe in PCs being something so special, that they need to get an automatic out-of-jail card. Still, both have alignment still in the game, so ok, I'm perfectly able to put those restrictions back in the game.
If the players of this hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0 game have to do any negotiating, then it means they're starting at a place where they're not wanted. The game is telling them they're unwelcome and should step off. No matter how quick a GM may be to turn around and say "Sure you can play 'blah'; pay that part of the game no mind", the game itself is starting with a giant raised middle finger aimed right at the player, telling them what's BadWrongFun and what the One True Way is.
And that's where we differ in opinion. Every player, who comes at my table, goes through a review process because I want to know what's his vision for his character and what's the motivation behind it. That review process explicitely includes the need for compromise (from both sides) and a player who's not willing to that is very unwelcome at my table no matter what character he wants to play. If you have this willingness, then suddenly you don't see a middle finger but can accept the rules standard as the suggestion it actually is. But one thing you will never have when I'm the GM is a game without restrictions. So if the necessity to negotiate (in case you want an exception) is something you can't accept just out of principle, then I guess I'm not the right GM for you.
And the designers should not be painting Pathfinder with Golarion's brush.
And another thing we differ in opinion. Because in my opinion, that's exactly what they should do and that they don't might drive me directly into the arms of starfinder even when I'm normally not for having to much science in my fantasy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5e casting is more like the arcanist model - you have a set of known/prepared spells, then expend your spell slots freely to cast from your list. Except spells don't actually scale with level unless you use higher level slots to cast them.
{. . .}
Okay, didn't realize that Arcanist-style casting was counted as non-Vancian -- I just thought of it as a variant in between the original (Cleric/Wizard) version and the spontaneous (Sorcerer/Oracle) version.
{. . .}
I.e., suppose I'm making a hypothetical game system for multiple settings, one of which is Star Wars, another of which is Marvel, and I explicitly advertise this game system as meant for more than just the material that I'm putting out. Do I establish in the core rules that casting lightning is bad? It is in Star Wars, so it's okay to slap that into the default rules, right? Or do I not get to say that just because Emperor Palpatine is evil and uses lightning that Storm and Thor must also be evil because they use lightning?
{. . .}
Even in Star Wars, Yoda doesn't fall to the Dark Side for using a bit of Force Lightning against Count Dooku.
In AD&D 1st Edition, Good Clerics could cast [Evil] spells (although they didn't have that descriptor on them by name) such as Animate Dead and Slay Living if they had a good enough reason -- it was just considered dangerous rather than absolutely forbidden. (Actually, sort of like the Unforgivable Curses in the Harry Potter setting -- they could under the right circumstances be forgivable if you were using them to combat Death Eaters.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I.e., suppose I'm making a hypothetical game system for multiple settings, one of which is Star Wars, another of which is Marvel, and I explicitly advertise this game system as meant for more than just the material that I'm putting out. Do I establish in the core rules that casting lightning is bad? It is in Star Wars, so it's okay to slap that into the default rules, right? Or do I not get to say that just because Emperor Palpatine is evil and uses lightning that Storm and Thor must also be evil because they use lightning?
Well if you're making a system for Star Wars and Marvel (which by the way might not be a particularly good idea), then the system should clearly be written in a way that don't supersedes setting properties from one setting with setting properties from the others. So no, just that it is in Star Wars doesn't mean that it can be in the rules.
The flaw in your argument is that Pathfinder didn't ever do that. While advertised for being usable for other settings besides Golarion it never said that it is suited for every other setting out there. And the designers are very aware of that as Starfinder proves which gets it's very own core rules even if its "only" a deviation from what's standard in Pathfinder.
The DnD, and by extension, the Pathfinder Rules can be used in a variety of settings, but I don't think that there is any setting which has no alignment rules (without at least discussing the changes made with regard to alignment. From Greyhawk to Eberron, all those settings share some similarities (alignment being one of them) and while there have been made efforts to adapt the d20 rules to Warcraft, WoD and even Ctulhu and probably even LotR (I know that something like this was announced by Cubicle 7 but haven't followed it's progress), there's a reason why none of those adaptations have become very popular. It's because none of this games/Settings lend very well to a D&D-style game. Though I guess that alignment might be on of the less important reasons. Still, you play Pathfinder, the standard expectation is that you have alignment in your game (setting) and, to my knowledge, no one ever said otherwise.
Can you change the alignment rules? Of course you can. But was Pathfinder - related to alignment - advertised as something it clearly isn't? No, it wasn't. So it's quite different from what your comparison suggests.
By the way, I don't buy the argument that there is no room for morally grey gameplay just because of the alignment. In fact, there is a lot of room for something like that, even for Paladins. And the alignment system of D&D/Pathfinder is anything but trivial. In fact, my guess would be that most people who don't like, actually don't like the complexity it brings with it. After all, it's so much easier to be a murderhobo if you don't have to think about moral implications at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, I don't buy the argument that there is no room for morally grey gameplay just because of the alignment. In fact, there is a lot of room for something like that, even for Paladins. And the alignment system of D&D/Pathfinder is anything but trivial. In fact, my guess would be that most people who don't like, actually don't like the complexity it brings with it. After all, it's so much easier to be a murderhobo if you don't have to think about moral implications at all.
Whilst I think there's some room for moral ambiguity, there's substantially less room in a world where Paladins fall and detect evil works than in one with subjective morality.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst I think there's some room for moral ambiguity, there's substantially less room in a world where Paladins fall and detect evil works than in one with subjective morality.
I'm not really sure if this is true. Because there's basically nothing you can do in a world with subjective morality only that you couldn't do in an alignment world like Golarion either. I mean, can you play a holy warrior that is lawful good and adhering to a strict code akin to the Paladin code without actual using the mechanical chassis of a Paladin. Sure you can, and I'd argued elsewhere that such a person might still be called a Paladin by other people in the setting. You can even make him fall without having mechanical repercussions, if you want to. On the other hand, you don't have to play a paladin as the shining star of lawful stupidness either.
And what does detect evil really means in a world where a lot of evil persons exist that didn't ever break any law? Actually not much because you can't act on that knowledge and if you rather trust the chaotic good guy instead of the lawful evil guy, it might very well turn out that you trusted the wrong person. Meaning that alignment isn't quite as absolute as it may seem at the first look.Yeah there are beings of absolute alignment. But as I see it, those beings are an additional layer to an otherwise morally subjective cast of people, not a replacement.
So as I see it, you can basically do everything you want, only that the system is written with a certain base idea in mind that gives it a bit of direction. You might disagree with my interpretation,but I still don't see how that system can be interpreted as "If you don't do it exactly how we command you to do, you are not welcome here."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure if this is true. Because there's basically nothing you can do in a world with subjective morality only that you couldn't do in an alignment world like Golarion either.
Well there is the whole, being a paladin who can do stuff normally regulated to alignments that aren't Lawful Good. For example, a Paladin who animates the dead, be freedomy, a paladin who tortures to get information, having a non-good party member with the aim of redeeming them, or simply a paladin abit more cut-throat than good-alignment allows. And it still be recognizably be a paladin. Still has the code (not just any code, but the code of being a paladin with the alignment specific text removed). Still smites evil. Still detects evil. Still is powered by their noble convictions.
On the other hand, you don't have to play a paladin as the shining star of lawful stupidness either.
No one is suggesting that paladins have to be lawful stupid just because morality is objective.
And what does detect evil really means in a world where a lot of evil persons exist that didn't ever break any law?
Evil people who don't break laws existed already, many lawful evil individuals live for that sorta thing. Subjective actually makes it possible to have detect evil that only detects people that broke the law.
Yeah there are beings of absolute alignment. But as I see it, those beings are an additional layer to an otherwise morally subjective cast of people, not a replacement.
No one is suggesting that characters with alignments all fit into a specific mind-set/personality based on their alignment. But they aren't morally subjective... They are objectively a certain alignment, in a universe were people know it's objective, and where you can get amulets which tell you "Don't do that because that's evil" whenever you consider committing an action that is Evil regardless of whether you know if it's evil or not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I no longer see arguments for more "morally ambiguous!" paladins and whatever as compelling ideas.
I might had gotten the need for it if you only had cleric and paladin as the choices of divine warriors, but with the inclusion of warpriest, oracle, inquisitor into the mix, I do not see reason to make this point anymore.
Also there is also the other thing, that some people just want to cannibalize the paladin kit for their non-paladin characters. I am not ready to indulge those people personally.
Let iconic paladins stay as they are. If they do not fit your current/future game's themes, then everyone should accept it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this alignment discussion is exactly why a Pathfinder 2.0 is a bad idea. Any new edition would have to make SOME decision about this and any decision (stay the same, if not then what kind of change) would alienate a vocal part of the community.
This would be especially problematic as the need that Pathfinder fills is "3.5 was great, why don't we streamline it and then have more of THAT please". This is a vital niche to serve. The 3x3 alignment system is, for good or for ill, a pretty fundamental building block of 3.5.
Paizo has already given its blessing for people to homebrew the alignment system however they want outside of PFS and have even provided some tools and suggestions on how to do so. I don't think you can do much more out of D&D 3.75.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this alignment discussion is exactly why a Pathfinder 2.0 is a bad idea. Any new edition would have to make SOME decision about this and any decision (stay the same, if not then what kind of change) would alienate a vocal part of the community.
Guess the trick is to find out which part of this is the majority. But eventually (and this might be quite some time away) they will have to make the decision, because it's probably better to alienate a vocal part of the commmunity than to lose the quiet majority who votes with their wallets.
Though my guess would be that the big majority has no real problem with alignment. Most of the time it simply gets ignored anyway. Not because no alignments make for a better game but because the players don't care enough to even think about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess the trick is to find out which part of this is the majority. But eventually (and this might be quite some time away) they will have to make the decision, because it's probably better to alienate a vocal part of the commmunity than to lose the quiet majority who votes with their wallets.
Well if we're changing to a business argument then really the question is "Would a Pathfinder 2.0 do better for Paizo against D&D 5E than the current Pathfinder" and unfortunately I think the answer to that is a pretty emphatic no..... The D&D brand is too strong in the Ye Olde Tolkein Fantasy RPG market as long as Wizards Of the Coast aren't being actively and aggressively idiotic with it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The D&D brand is too strong in the Ye Olde Tolkein Fantasy RPG market as long as Wizards Of the Coast aren't being actively and aggressively idiotic with it.
I don't think that the D&D brand even matters at this point as far as Paizo's business decisions go. Paizo never pretended that their brand has the same reach and did carve their niche out for themselves in the last 10+ years. They only have to look at themselves and people who didn't run away to 5E til now won't suddenly decide to do so just because of Pathfinder 2.0.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly wonder what percentage of players only write something in the "alignment" field because they don't like empty spaces on their character sheet.
I mean, you can play a righteous, law-abiding do-gooder or a scoundrel with a heart of gold without writing LG or CG anywhere on their character sheets; people manage this sort of thing all the time in other games without alignment systems.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly wonder what percentage of players only write something in the "alignment" field because they don't like empty spaces on their character sheet.
I mean, you can play a righteous, law-abiding do-gooder or a scoundrel with a heart of gold without writing LG or CG anywhere on their character sheets; people manage this sort of thing all the time in other games without alignment systems.
I usually wait a bit if I'm allowed before writing an alignment in, since what I come up with and what I end up portraying doesn't always sync.
I don't think that the D&D brand even matters at this point as far as Paizo's business decisions go.
I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that :).
In any case even ignoring D&D I don't think Paizo is large enough to support Pathfinder AND Starfinder AND Pathfinder 2.0.
Edit: Or Paizo's playerbase for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly wonder what percentage of players only write something in the "alignment" field because they don't like empty spaces on their character sheet.
As a 4e DM, I can attest that many players do just as you say. I've told every one of my 4e groups "alignment really doesn't matter, so don't bother putting one on your sheet." And yet most do anyway, even if to simply jot 'Unaligned.'
Amusingly, I shocked the last PF group I gamed with when I revealed that my one-shot witch was NE. "What, it's Halloween night! How could my witch not be evil?"
Granted, my witch didn't really do anything evil during that one-shot.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case even ignoring D&D I don't think Paizo is large enough to support Pathfinder AND Starfinder AND Pathfinder 2.0.
I guess, on that we can agree at, least. :)
Though I think that Starfinder is very much an experiment in more than Setting expansion, it's also a test case for new rules. And what might happen with the Pathfinder 2.0 idea might very much depend on Starfinder and it's success (or lack thereof).
As no matter what they will lose some members of the fanbase.
I'm not denying that but it's also not as if they hadn't gained new fanbase members in the last few years.
I also remember the times before PFRPG (or before the APs even) when a lot of people said that PFRPG could never be a success. Turns out they were wrong and a lot of said success I attribute to Lisa, Vic and Eric (and the whole rest of the creative staff, of course). They seemed to know pretty well what to do in the past, so I have a lot of trust in that whatever they do in the future will turn out to be a success, no matter what WotC or other competitors do.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand everyone's zeal to want to revise, compile, and stream line. Here are three issues why I DO NOT want to see a PF2.0:
1. Cost and loss of investment. I have done what probably most of you haven't done. I have invested over $1K in Pathfinder in the 1.0 version. So, I am by NO MEANS wanting to repeat. Thanks.
2. Yes, it will bring people from DnD5E back maybe. But, the fact is, DnD5e is rules lite and over simplified in my opinion. To the point of where most of it is Vanilla at best.
3. Investing the time to relearn, unlearn and try to flush 1.0 out of mind. I did that with DnD 1, 2e, 3e, 3.5e and others. Plus, I have learned Savage Worlds, OpenLegendRPG and other systems. So, keeping it all straight gets more fun with more editions.
Let's face it y'all. No matter what they do to revise it, people won't like the revision. People don't like 5e, 4e, GURPs and other systems. Everyone has a preference. And, with them investing in Starfinder and so much into the Adventure Paths as is, you are talking about them taking resources that PAIZO may or may not have, take them away from:
1. PFS
2. Campaign
3. Corebooks
4. Material for 3rd Party
5. Maps
6. Minis
and the list goes on to revise the rules. It can be done, but do they want to? It is a good thing to ask them before everyone makes a huge to do about wanting 2.0. Just one GM's thoughts.
|
They need to offer both old and new material. Simply offering a rehash with better production values, organization and art. While make some fans happy give me and others very little reason to purchase the CRB. If it's the same materail why would I want to buy it twice. I get people don't want their collections invalidated. Neither do I want the exact same thing to be sold to me twice either.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^
You may have to prepare yourself for the possibility you are odd man out.
Possibly but I also think some vastly overestimating how many people want to buy the same rules twice. Just because some do does not mean everyone else will. Just as I won't assume everyone wants to by a completley new edition.
**** NO!
But I guess it doesn't matter if there is a 2.0, I'll keep running the first one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, didn't realize that Arcanist-style casting was counted as non-Vancian -- I just thought of it as a variant in between the original (Cleric/Wizard) version and the spontaneous (Sorcerer/Oracle) version.5e casting is more like the arcanist model - you have a set of known/prepared spells, then expend your spell slots freely to cast from your list. Except spells don't actually scale with level unless you use higher level slots to cast them.
{. . .}
A thought on the vancian question: D&D has been drifting away from vancian casting since WotC took over, and even vancian casting in the TSR editions aren't truly Vancian.
5e and PF (by way of the arcanist) have removed the fire-and-forget aspect of vancian casting. 4e kept the fire-and-forget aspect, but added the per-encounter aspect as a standard. 3e refluffed the spell memorization aspect as spell preparation, and introduced spontaneous casting as a core option. Even going back to TSR D&D, casters are largely vancian in implementation but far beyond Vancian in scope -- even the mightiest of Vance's archmages can manage to remember a mere four spells at a time!
On the other hand, D&D wizards capping out at four spells per spell level (bonus spells notwithstanding of course)...coincidence? I think not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly but I also think some vastly overestimating how many people want to buy the same rules twice. Just because some do does not mean everyone else will. Just as I won't assume everyone wants to by a completley new edition.^
You may have to prepare yourself for the possibility you are odd man out.
See, it's just not about you. You can not buy it and that would be OK. The CRB continues to be a top seller EVERY YEAR. That means that people are already buying the crap out of it. Reorganize/Syreamlining will only serve to increase that number. Because the same amount of sales (that gives it top seller status) will continue in any event AND everyone who wants the revamped format will buy it too. The new version would be a smashing success because it will only get bigger sales than the current success.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your selling the same material twice and expecting it to somehow be as successful the first time around. That could very well be but I'm skeptical that it will. Those in the hobby won't be be rushing out to buy a rehash imo. It's why some still play 3.5. even if PF is superior imo. As they feel it's more of the same. It could go either way. Which is why I'm not assuming it will be the auto-success that some assume it will be. Notr will I assume a full 2E will be as successful either. It could go either way. Chances are we will never see any major changes anyway. Or even a revised better organized CRB. Not unless they sell out of all their current printings. Nor will i assume that people will stop buying simply because I'm unhappy with some elements of the rpg.
BTW I never said it was just about me. Their are plenty who feel the same way. They simply are less vocal about it. I never said a new edition.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Cost and loss of investment. I have done what probably most of you haven't done. I have invested over $1K in Pathfinder in the 1.0 version.
heh, you might be surprised. I guess I beat the $1k with my AP collection alone easily. Add to that everything else I have from Paizo and everything I bought from 3PP, I might easily have spend something between $3-5k minimum in the meantime. And just to offer a counterpoint, I would still be very willing to pay substantial money to a 2.0 edition. As I did with former editions because frankly, when I had enough material to never again needing something new, I think 2e was still thriving. And I still kept spending money.
As far as ressources are concerned, that's for Paizo to decide. They could publish PFRPG while still publishing APs, modules, companions and so on, and while I don't know how much Starfinder might factor in with that, I don't think that it couldn't be done again. If they want to, I wouldn't know, but as I (and others) are only expressing our preferences, I also don't think that it really matters. I mean, why should they even think about making 2.0 if no one tells them he would want to have that?
|
|
The hobby is expnsive somewhat. Sure it's not like buying a car. Yet one spend alot of money over time. The average hardcover now costs 50$ or more Canadian. The Villan Codex is 55$ or more. Buy three hardcovers and your at 150$ or so before tax. My only regret is that if given the chance I would buy only rpgs I would use. Rather than clutter my shelves with rpgs that will never see use.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be fine as long as Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT IN ANY WAY "Fun." In 4e, the PHB asserts that the game is supposed to be Fun, and the DMG encourages you to try to make sure gaming is Fun for everyone playing with you. Everyone knows that 4e was just a conspiracy by the socialist communist capitalist illuminati to destroy our sacred hobby. Therefore, so-called "Fun" must also be a part of the conspiracy, and hence is to be avoided at all cost. In fact, any game which is "Fun" will inevitably be identical to 4e.
As long as Pathfinder 2.0 is not Fun, I'll enj-
...no, hang on, I can't enjoy it if it's not fun, let's try that again.
As long as Pathfinder 2.0 is not Fun, I'll be satisfied.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your selling the same material twice and expecting it to somehow be as successful the first time
No, but I expect it to continue being as successful as it is. Plus picking up bonus sales from those who would like to purchase it in the new format.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal belief is that at the current moment (from a semi-hardcore PF players perspective), the game is not in a state where a total reboot is necessary. There are a few glitches but nothing near the state that 3.5 reached before 4.0 dropped. So far the only system that I have viewed as openly broken (and not in a good way) is the prestige class system.
Prestige and multiclassing in 3.5 were essentially necessary to reach upper echelons of power. In PF, you're practically penalized for doing so. Most prestige classes offer relatively minor benefits while forgoing the primary class advancement of abilities, usually ending up as a worse version of one archetype or another. In my mind either prestige classes need to be reworked all-together, or simply abandoned. Most books these days aren't published with almost any prestige classes for a reason, just more archetypes. And while I understand and appreciate that change in focus, I do think prestige classes were a useful piece of the game that was just poorly implemented in PF.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
You made it really hard not to bite this time. But I won't and only comment that the word "fun" can be found in the Pathfinder Core Rules as soon as page 5 and not only one or two, but 4 times, so I wouldn't expect too much from 2.0 if I were you. They might not be physically able to remove it completely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will see. Never assume anything with the rpg hobby imo.
Plus picking up bonus sales from those who would like to purchase it in the new format.
Well, I mean, truth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case even ignoring D&D I don't think Paizo is large enough to support Pathfinder AND Starfinder AND Pathfinder 2.0.I guess, on that we can agree at, least. :)
Though I think that Starfinder is very much an experiment in more than Setting expansion, it's also a test case for new rules. And what might happen with the Pathfinder 2.0 idea might very much depend on Starfinder and it's success (or lack thereof).
I think there is another test too - Starfinder rules, setting and Adventure path are all mixed together. There isn't a seperate rules line, and setting line - and they have said "the adventure path is the primary medium for presenting new rule content". So it could also be testing how well that concept plays out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst I think there's some room for moral ambiguity, there's substantially less room in a world where Paladins fall and detect evil works than in one with subjective morality.I'm not really sure if this is true. Because there's basically nothing you can do in a world with subjective morality only that you couldn't do in an alignment world like Golarion either. I mean, can you play a holy warrior that is lawful good and adhering to a strict code akin to the Paladin code without actual using the mechanical chassis of a Paladin. Sure you can, and I'd argued elsewhere that such a person might still be called a Paladin by other people in the setting. You can even make him fall without having mechanical repercussions, if you want to. On the other hand, you don't have to play a paladin as the shining star of lawful stupidness either.
And what does detect evil really means in a world where a lot of evil persons exist that didn't ever break any law? Actually not much because you can't act on that knowledge and if you rather trust the chaotic good guy instead of the lawful evil guy, it might very well turn out that you trusted the wrong person. Meaning that alignment isn't quite as absolute as it may seem at the first look.Yeah there are beings of absolute alignment. But as I see it, those beings are an additional layer to an otherwise morally subjective cast of people, not a replacement.
So as I see it, you can basically do everything you want, only that the system is written with a certain base idea in mind that gives it a bit of direction. You might disagree with my interpretation,but I still don't see how that system can be interpreted as "If you don't do it exactly how we command you to do, you are not welcome here."
What goes missing is the moral grey area. In a world of subjective morality, the holier-than-thou paladin who you disagree with may be a good person at heart or might be a baddie - those concepts just aren't the same thing in a world with alignment as currently modelled.
If they're a baddie, they lose their paladin abilities and will be detectable as such via objective, magical means. There is not as much wrestling with moral questions (a la the real world) because there's an actual, objectively verifiable answer.
I'm not arguing for or against, by the way (I'm ambivalent on the issue) I just think it's a substantial difference in the world if morality is objective (along with a reliable means of determining that) or is subjective and it has significant bearing on the moral stories one can tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, give me two seconds.
"Paladin. Alignment: Any, though most are lawful good."
"Monk. Alignment: Any, though most are lawful."
"Druid. Alignment: Any, though most are neutral on at least one axis."
There you go. We have how things typically are, and the players are left alone. Heck, we can even go a step further.
"Paladin. Alignment: Lawful good (player characters are not subject to this restriction)."
"Monk. Alignment: Any lawful (player characters are not subject to this restriction)."
I would probably be very comfortable with the first option. With the second, not so much, because I don't believe in PCs being something so special, that they need to get an automatic out-of-jail card. Still, both have alignment still in the game, so ok, I'm perfectly able to put those restrictions back in the game.
If the players of this hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0 game have to do any negotiating, then it means they're starting at a place where they're not wanted. The game is telling them they're unwelcome and should step off. No matter how quick a GM may be to turn around and say "Sure you can play 'blah'; pay that part of the game no mind", the game itself is starting with a giant raised middle finger aimed right at the player, telling them what's BadWrongFun and what the One True Way is.And that's where we differ in opinion. Every player, who comes at my table, goes through a review process because I want to know what's his vision for his character and what's the motivation behind it. That review process explicitely includes the need for compromise (from both sides) and a player who's not willing to that is very unwelcome at my table no matter what character he wants to play. If you have this willingness, then suddenly you don't see a middle finger but can accept the rules standard as the suggestion it actually is. But one thing you will never have when I'm the GM is a game without restrictions. So if the necessity to negotiate (in case you want an exception) is something you can't accept just out of principle, then I guess I'm not the right GM for you.
It doesn't matter. You are running a Pathfinder game. Pathfinder is the game that disallows otherwise perfectly valid character concepts, and tells players that they, the players, are the absolute last person who can have any idea what sort of a character he should be wanting to play. So it doesn't matter how willing to compromise you say you are. By running a Pathfinder game, you started that conversation with "Hello, screw you." That is what that communicates. The player always starts off at a disadvantage and the GM is always an adversary. Negotiating with you on even footing and with even respect? Perfectly fine. Negotiating with the game which started off by saying "up thine" and establishing a position of disdain? Hell no.
And the designers should not be painting Pathfinder with Golarion's brush.And another thing we differ in opinion. Because in my opinion, that's exactly what they should do and that they don't might drive me directly into the arms of starfinder even when I'm normally not for having to much science in my fantasy.
Above, you were fine with how I conveyed the so-called typical examples of various classes in terms that do not provide selfish players with the license they currently use to deny others the character concepts they come to this game intending to play. What changed? Forcing Pathfinder to adhere to Golarion's assumptions rather than letting Golarion's example stand as (and only as) potential inspiration to stir the imagination but not lock it into rigidity is exactly what I'm against. And it had sounded for a moment like you didn't actually need it your own self.
I.e., suppose I'm making a hypothetical game system for multiple settings, one of which is Star Wars, another of which is Marvel, and I explicitly advertise this game system as meant for more than just the material that I'm putting out. Do I establish in the core rules that casting lightning is bad? It is in Star Wars, so it's okay to slap that into the default rules, right? Or do I not get to say that just because Emperor Palpatine is evil and uses lightning that Storm and Thor must also be evil because they use lightning?Well if you're making a system for Star Wars and Marvel (which by the way might not be a particularly good idea), then the system should clearly be written in a way that don't supersedes setting properties from one setting with setting properties from the others. So no, just that it is in Star Wars doesn't mean that it can be in the rules.
The flaw in your argument is that Pathfinder didn't ever do that. While advertised for being usable for other settings besides Golarion it never said that it is suited for every other setting out there. And the designers are very aware of that as Starfinder proves which gets it's very own core rules even if its "only" a deviation from what's standard in Pathfinder.
The DnD, and by extension, the Pathfinder Rules can be used in a variety of settings, but I don't think that there is any setting which has no alignment rules (without at least discussing the changes made with regard to alignment. From Greyhawk to Eberron, all those settings share some similarities (alignment being one of them) and while there have been made efforts to adapt the d20 rules to Warcraft, WoD and even Ctulhu and probably even LotR (I know that something like this was announced by Cubicle 7 but haven't followed it's progress), there's a reason why none of those adaptations have become very popular. It's because none of this games/Settings lend very well to a D&D-style game. Though I guess that alignment might be on of the less important reasons. Still, you play Pathfinder, the standard expectation is that you have alignment in your game (setting) and, to my knowledge, no one ever said otherwise.
Can you change the alignment rules? Of course you can. But was Pathfinder - related to alignment - advertised as something it clearly isn't? No, it wasn't. So it's quite different from what your comparison suggests.
And I disagree. A game written for multiple published settings and also containing the explicit invitation to use these rules to express adventures set in any other homebrewed settings the players of the game may want to come up with (and for that matter, the heir-apparent of that game which also contains that same explicit invitation, even if said heir only has one published setting of its own) does not get to say "let your imagination soar, but only this far and in these few directions. I find that very contrived.
Heck, you were saying that a proper willingness to compromise allows one to see alignment as presented by the game as only a suggestion. If true, then that must mean that, regardless of how many or how few times the developers created an alignment-less game setting or how successful third party publisher attempts at alignment-less game settings were, alignment-less is exactly one of the myriad directions we are encouraged by the developers to take this game. Which I think is exactly in line with my comparison.
By the way, I don't buy the argument that there is no room for morally grey gameplay just because of the alignment. In fact, there is a lot of room for something like that, even for Paladins. And the alignment system of D&D/Pathfinder is anything but trivial. In fact, my guess would be that most people who don't like, actually don't like the complexity it brings with it. After all, it's so much easier to be a murderhobo if you don't have to think about moral implications at all.
It's never been about being a murderhobo for me. It's about wanting to sit down, relax, and play the game. To create a cool character and have that character face all sorts of different challenges. About how that character faces said challenges being exactly that, merely the how. I do not believe having one set of abilities here or a different set there has or can have any bearing on what they believe or are motivated by. Just because I picked "unarmed, unarmored, fights with ki" over "armor, two weapons, nature-y" this time around does not in any way imply or include fine print saying "please, oh please, put me under extra scrutiny from clear out of nowhere for no damned good reason". I am never playing this game because I want some looming sword of Damocles hanging over my head, just waiting for me to be not lawful enough or one chaotic act too many to come down and eliminate the whole damned point of me having bothered to come and play. I play RPGs to get away from the stresses of the week, not have them added to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this alignment discussion is exactly why a Pathfinder 2.0 is a bad idea. Any new edition would have to make SOME decision about this and any decision (stay the same, if not then what kind of change) would alienate a vocal part of the community.Guess the trick is to find out which part of this is the majority. But eventually (and this might be quite some time away) they will have to make the decision, because it's probably better to alienate a vocal part of the commmunity than to lose the quiet majority who votes with their wallets.
Though my guess would be that the big majority has no real problem with alignment. Most of the time it simply gets ignored anyway. Not because no alignments make for a better game but because the players don't care enough to even think about it.
I think that if you're faced with alienating one person who just wants to play the character he wanted to play and alienating five people who are only being alienated because they want to limit the options of their fellow players, never minding that they themselves are not affected, then you have a moral obligation to piss five people off rather than one.
Or to quote Captain Picard, "how many people does it take before it becomes wrong?"
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The debate on the Alignment concept is an interesting one... but not something I think actually conducive to a discussion on a hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0.
They gambled and chose the latter, and it has paid off immensely.
Eight years later (give or take), and Paizo have released a LOT of material for both Pathfinder and Golarion. While the 3rd edition ruleset is rather complex, has rather wonky 'balance', and has a steeper learning curve that can be off-putting for new players, deviating too far from it is not in Paizo's best interests, for two reasons:
1) If Pathfinder 2.0 is not compatible with Pathfinder 1.0 material, then Paizo cannot leverage their greatest asset - Golarion and published material for it. Given the market is fairly saturated, it is not good business practice to give up one's main advantage.
2) If Pathfinder 2.0 is not compatible with Pathfinder 1.0, then the two versions of the system will in fact be competing. It is this exact issue (with the release of 4th edition) that gave rise to Pathfinder in the first place. It is not good business practice to ignore precedents and established market trends.
For the hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0 to be a success, it must be compatible with Pathfinder 1.0 and thus a natural shift from the old to the new, rather than a competing system. And Alignment is something that is thoroughly ingrained in the system. Monsters, characters, spells, items and various other effects that are dependant upon it are in almost every published work to date.
Could they remove alignment? Yes.
Should they remove alignment? No. It could be downplayed in new material, but given its presence in their massive back catalogue, it is something that must be supported at the very least.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even as someone who dislikes alignment and removes it in my campaigns, I think PF2 if it ever gets made, it should have alignment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about Pathfinder 2.0 with alignment, but with a large sidebar of a fleshed-out version of the Unchained rules for removing alignment?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter. You are running a Pathfinder game. Pathfinder is the game that disallows otherwise perfectly valid character concepts, and tells players that they, the players, are the absolute last person who can have any idea what sort of a character he should be wanting to play. So it doesn't matter how willing to compromise you say you are. By running a Pathfinder game, you started that conversation with "Hello, screw you." That is what that communicates. The player always starts off at a disadvantage and the GM is always an adversary. Negotiating with you on even footing and with even respect? Perfectly fine. Negotiating with the game which started off by saying "up thine" and establishing a position of disdain? Hell no.
The bolded, in my view, seems like an overly harsh depiction of the stance "alignment lies within the DM's purview". Hyperbole is rarely persuasive.
There are different perspectives on judging rules components other than just the "Player empowerment vs DM fiat" axis. One subsystem restricting player choice doesn't imply the game is saying "screw you", IMO.
|
|
What goes missing is the moral grey area. In a world of subjective morality, the holier-than-thou paladin who you disagree with may be a good person at heart or might be a baddie - those concepts just aren't the same thing in a world with alignment as currently modelled.
Probably depends on how you go about it. I only can see that as a problem if you interpret the rule terms as in-game-terms as well. I don't so I can have class paladins and other Paladins standing next to next. And the people around them think abouzt both as paladins.
Above, you were fine with how I conveyed the so-called typical examples of various classes in terms that do not provide selfish players with the license they currently use to deny others the character concepts they come to this game intending to play. What changed? Forcing Pathfinder to adhere to Golarion's assumptions rather than letting Golarion's example stand as (and only as) potential inspiration to stir the imagination but not lock it into rigidity is exactly what I'm against. And it had sounded for a moment like you didn't actually need it your own self.
Well, first I don't think that rules nor setting are as prohibitive as you make them out to be, so there's that. And secoond, that's only my own preference because I think the system would be better off if it catered to it's own setting than try to be everything for everyone. As it stands, it caters to a certain genre of settings which is fine enough by me. But I'm a big fan of unique rules for unique settings, that's all.
On the other hand, I don't interpret the rules as written as THE LAW that cannot be changed. And as it is simply impossible to write rules everyone likes, I also think that such a interpretation can never be anything but detrimental. The way I see it, you don't win anything with generic rules, you just lose flavor. But well, that's just me.
I think that if you're faced with alienating one person who just wants to play the character he wanted to play and alienating five people who are only being alienated because they want to limit the options of their fellow players, never minding that they themselves are not affected, then you have a moral obligation to piss five people off rather than one.
Well, the way I see it I'm faced with alienating one player who thinks everything has to be all about him vs alienating five players who actually like the way it is. And I don't intend to limit those five players' fun just because one player decides that from all the myriads of options he can choose from, he obviously can't have fun with a single one and feels offended by the mere thought that he might need to compromise with the other players if he wants to go outside of setting or rules expectations. Because in the end, he might just have to ask to learn that the others have actually no problem with what he wants to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What goes missing is the moral grey area. In a world of subjective morality, the holier-than-thou paladin who you disagree with may be a good person at heart or might be a baddie - those concepts just aren't the same thing in a world with alignment as currently modelled.Probably depends on how you go about it. I only can see that as a problem if you interpret the rule terms as in-game-terms as well. I don't so I can have class paladins and other Paladins standing next to next. And the people around them think abouzt both as paladins.
Paladins falling was just an example. The point is there's an objectively correct answer to moral questions.
If the questionable character has an objectively determinable alignment of lawful good you know they're not a baddie, they're just misunderstood.
In a world with subjective morality, there's no way to know. That's a fundamental difference to the universe (and hence limits the stories possible, either way you go).
It's not really a "problem", in my view, but it is a reasonably profound difference.
I don't know how so many players have a problem with alignment it has NEVER been a problem in any game I've ever played in 17 years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a world with subjective morality, there's no way to know. That's a fundamental difference to the universe (and hence limits the stories possible, either way you go).
Soryy Steve, but I have to break from this very interesting discussion because so short before Christmas, I have not the necessary time for it (and it probably doesn't belong in this thread anyway).
So I'll just add that I agree in that it makes for a profound (philosophical) difference, but I don't see that it would limit story possibilities. Because the Lawful good baddie: Still very possible in my mind.
In the end, what is the deciding factor for me is, if you can play anything you want in the actual game you're playing. And with respect to this, I don't see the rules system as prohibitive but as very encouraging to do so instead. And that you can't simply do anything you want but that you have to keep the interests of your fellow co-players (including the GM) in mind is to me a given in any social activity.
So what I take real issue with is to call others selfish just because they want to have fun too.