|
| 1 person 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?
For example. Or, to accomodate players like Tectorman, do it the other way round and make core without alignment but optionally add alignment for those who want to have it in their games. Though I think that your solution feels more natural, given the system's history.
edit: and just as my last try to find out if I'm only misunderstanding his position:
In Pathfinder RPG, there is no Warforged race. Now a player comes at my table and asks if he still can play a Warforged. My answer most probably would be: Well, ok, officially there are none in Golarion (or every other setting but Eberron) but let's sit together and find out how we can change that for our game.
In Pathfinder RPG, Paladins are defined as Lawful Good only. Now a player comes at my table and asks if he can play a not-LG-paladin. My answer would most probably be: Well, ok, officially there are none in Golarion (and basically every other D&D-like setting) but let's sit together and find out how we can change that for our game.
So what about that is wrong, and why is it wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two bits,
===Alignment
I think a major part of the alignment issue comes from the defining traits of each alignment being ambiguious/vague/inconsistent.
For example, I consider lawful to mean basically dedicated, persistant, and disciplined. These are traits required to achieve the level of self mastery the monk class is supposed to represent, therefore, the alignment restriction makes sense. Same with the paladin, who is stubborn and believes so strongly and is so dedicated, that they continue to push against all odds when others would take a strategic retreat (or outright cut and run).
Define good, evil, law, chaos in a particular way, and suddenly the restrictions make sense and work even when subjective.
Good/evil for example can simple be a matter of how one sees other people. Good places high importance on others, neutral places some importance on others (like being treating oneself first but being generous with the remainder) or placing importance on a more limited group (importance on the family/clan/party/master race, but not others), while evil places little or negative importance on others.
This keeps the details of what exactly is good or evil subjective yet has an objective base that most people could agree with.
Intrrestingly, I find it far less likely someone could change their law vs chaos alignment than their good vs evil alignment.
===Who says what is or is not acceptable
I think the problem here comes from how players/designers look at the rules.
In dnd, especially with Gygax, the rules were just a baseline, a starting point. The rules didn't say what you could or could not do, rather they gave a baseline that could make it easier to craft and use whatever concept you want to craft. If you reread the 3.x books you'll notice all kinds of passages dncouraging the gm to change and make adaptations, even gives an example for what to do about a paladin that doesn't want a mount.
The only things is that the rules are also trying to reinforce how the gm is the god and master over their campaign.
The rules were never meant to be absolute like the rules of chess or checkers.
Of course, I've seen plenty of evidence that some designers don't understand that concept and one of my biggest issues with pathfinder is that it seriously hurt this aspect of the core d20 rules, even seriously reducing the baseline rules from npcs and such. Which is a problem because now the gms have no baseline to modify nor build upon, instead needing to build from scratch in pf where they once had a solid baseline in 3.5.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Don't judge me, love me *kicks a dog*
-Later-
Whadda ya mean I lose my paladin powers?! Worst game! This is... this is all alignments fault!!
| 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).
You're probably right.
Merry Christmas. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tectorman: I think you're elevating the rules to a position over the GM of any given campaign that is not shared by most others. The GM is always more important than the rules in any Pathfinder game that's not PFS.
I play a lot of PbP and there are a lot of recruitment for campaigns that I would love to throw my hat in but one of the requirements of the recruitment is something like "No gunslingers or monks or ninjas or samurais". Now considering three of my first character concepts ever where a monk, a gunslinger and a ninja I feel excluded by that restriction. Now by the rules I should be able to play a multiclass ninja/gunslinger/samurai if I want but the GM has said that they don't want that. And that's okay. It's just not a game for me.
The same is true for pretty much every aspect of the game including alignment. If your character concept doesn't fit what a GM wants from their game then that's not going to fly no matter what the blurb on alignment may or may not be in the core rule book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 5e's bounded accuracy concept is good for attack rolls and saves. But not skills.
A pf 2 should also streamline much of the rules set. Full attacks are rather awful and I do not think the 5e solution is perfect.
There is a lot to improve upon, I'm excited to see what real pf 2 does later this year (starfinder)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a lot of PbP and there are a lot of recruitment for campaigns that I would love to throw my hat in but one of the requirements of the recruitment is something like "No gunslingers or monks or ninjas or samurais". Now considering three of my first character concepts ever where a monk, a gunslinger and a ninja I feel excluded by that restriction. Now by the rules I should be able to play a multiclass ninja/gunslinger/samurai if I want but the GM has said that they don't want that. And that's okay. It's just not a game for me.
Now imagine that by the rules, monks have to be CN because they're based on someone's image of a drunken-master. And that samurais can use katanas, and only katanas, because the writer thinks that the class is super-powerful and must be counter-balanced by this restriction. And that gunslingers must be human, because there are no demihumans in the westerns that the class is based on. And now imagine that the rules contain many other restrictions and wrinkles, so that despite the game's zillion options, it may be a non-trivial task to play a character you can get excited about, depending on which options a given DM allows.
Sure, you can always ask a DM for special dispensation to ignore this or that restriction, but most DMs you meet think at least some of those restrictions are warranted, even if only because they're printed in the rules. Or they treat these restrictions as a litmus test -- those who can accept all the arbitrary restrictions are deemed team players, while those who ask for dispensation (or too many) are deemed problem players and are not invited back. And sure, you can play other games, but there are other parts of PF you really like. And besides, PF is pretty well-known and easy to find games of.
So even though these restrictions ought to be a non-issue because it's all in the DM's hands, and somewhere out there there are DMs who are happy to both allow these classes and disregard their restrictions...finding one can get mighty time-consuming, energy-consuming, and frustrating. All because the writers saw fit to not only write the samurai, gunslinger, and ninja around their own personal tastes and perceptions -- but also explicitly excluded other interpretations of those classes.
I hope you can see why this isn't just a matter of individual DM preference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You've played Pathfinder for 17 years?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tequila I'm not sure where you're contradicting my point that the GM of any given non PFS campaign is more important than the rules in determining if they are running a game that I would like to, or can, play in or not.
Now certainly I think a lot of this is inherited from 3.5, but that is the niche that Pathfinder serves and Paizo has given a lot of tools to get away from that for any game that wishes to do so and Rule 0 is always in effect in any case. I agree that it makes finding a game harder (just as wanting to play a gunslinger does when that breaks the Ye Olde Fantasie Tolkein Europe feel that a lot of GMs and players want to play in) but I disagree that it is in any way a middle finger to anyone
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.You've played Pathfinder for 17 years?
Alignment predates pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think, though, that Pathfinder makes alignment matter more than a lot of previous versions do. Stuff like "all clerics must worship a god and must be within one step of the alignment of that god" and "all undead are always evil no matter what" would have seemed odd in the AD&D days. I mean, back then I might have played a cleric of an entire pantheon (of diverse alignment) and skeletons were neutral.
I'm not sure this is a positive development.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, though, that Pathfinder makes alignment matter more than a lot of previous versions do. Stuff like "all clerics must worship a god and must be within one step of the alignment of that god" and "all undead are always evil no matter what" would have seemed odd in the AD&D days. I mean, back then I might have played a cleric of an entire pantheon (of diverse alignment) and skeletons were neutral.
I'm not sure this is a positive development.
Those were changes made in 3rd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 5e's bounded accuracy concept is good for attack rolls and saves. But not skills.
A pf 2 should also streamline much of the rules set. Full attacks are rather awful and I do not think the 5e solution is perfect.
There is a lot to improve upon, I'm excited to see what real pf 2 does later this year (starfinder)
Iterative attacks do serve a very useful function in the game.
5E has an extremely spikey increase of damage output; A 5th level fighter does literally twice the damage output of a 4th, and an 11th does 50% more than a 10th. This is hard to balance around, though they seem to have tried to do so with the monsters, but that creates different headaches.
What iterative attacks do is make damage scale more smoothly as characters level, and with different Attack bonuses vs AC. Yes, they're a little bit of a headache to deal with, but ultimately too useful to simply discard.
As for the Full-Attack as a Full-Round Action... That is something that is less necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One players bug is another players feature. Spending time finding the right playstyle match is time well spent imo. Not sure blowing the lid off the restrictions is going to make things any easier when you try to join a game and the GM says no ninja.
If that's what you took from my thoughts, this discussion is going nowhere fast.
I do agree that spending time to find the right group is well worth the time, insofar as a game's culture demands it. However, there's no value in time-spending in and of itself and there are plenty of other playstyle differences to make finding the right group a time-consuming process, without the game favoring one playstyle over another with odd restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tequila I'm not sure where you're contradicting my point that the GM of any given non PFS campaign is more important than the rules in determining if they are running a game that I would like to, or can, play in or not.
I'm not contradicting your point that an individual GM has ultimate authority over the rules; I could buy the PF core book, change every rule in it, and then run a campaign using those rules. Rather, I'm pointing out that the rules have an aggregate effect on a game's DM population, and that this effect is not trivial. I wrote a somewhat lengthy comment on it earlier in the thread.
Now certainly I think a lot of this is inherited from 3.5, but that is the niche that Pathfinder serves and Paizo has given a lot of tools to get away from that for any game that wishes to do so and Rule 0 is always in effect in any case. I agree that it makes finding a game harder (just as wanting to play a gunslinger does when that breaks the Ye Olde Fantasie Tolkein Europe feel that a lot of GMs and players want to play in) but I disagree that it is in any way a middle finger to anyone
Every human edifice occupies a niche, until it doesn't. There are D&Ders who feel that D&D's niche is the game of race-as-classes, ten-foot poles, PCs who aren't worth naming until they survive a few levels, and many other quirky traditionalisms. And yet D&D has expanded beyond that niche. If PF survives in the long-term, I hardly think that it will be an exception to the rule of expanding human edifices.
I'm not going to comment on metaphors, but I certainly think that the hypothetical restrictions I placed on your favorite classes on behalf of Paizo are needlessly exclusive and demonstrate favoritism toward one playstyle over others. For reference:
Now imagine that by the rules, monks have to be CN because they're based on someone's image of a drunken-master. And that samurais can use katanas, and only katanas, because the writer thinks that the class is super-powerful and must be counter-balanced by this restriction. And that gunslingers must be human, because there are no demihumans in the westerns that the class is based on. And now imagine that the rules contain many other restrictions and wrinkles, so that despite the game's zillion options, it may be a non-trivial task to play a character you can get excited about, depending on which options a given DM allows...
I can't say that I like the idea of Pathfinder II, but I would LOVE to see a newer version of at least the corebook and perhaps a few more besides. A new book with no real changes to the mechanics, but with any errors removed, a more streamlined layout, simpler explanations, class archetypes included, maybe another race or class, and perhaps different artwork. Maybe even an introductory adventure and mini-bestiary of super common monsters included like in the beginner box. As a GM, I love the idea of having everything, or at least almost everything, right there in one book and not needing to dig through three different tomes to find the rules for some obscure issue. Of course, maybe it's only me that has scatter brained players who use this as a chance to begin a mini-adventure of petty theft and opportunistic cannibalism.
Merry Christmas. :)
And the same to you (and everyone else)
A truce at Christmas? Sure. Merry Christmas, Happy Hearth's Warming Eve, and QISmaS DatIvjaj'.
Incidentally, what year was that original Christmas Armistice in WWI? Is this the centennial anniversary?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those things sound like mistakes to me. :-)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
False. In D&D 3rd edition I can play a cleric of a pantheon with differing alignments without needing to share an alignment with any of them
*looks at my falling apart 3rd edition PHB*
... no. It says you have to be within one step of your deity just like PF, BUT it is actually stricter than in PF because it also says you cannot be a neutral cleric unless you worship a neutral deity. Cleric alignment restrictions have gone Down in PF. Not up.undead are not always evil
They are evil as much as they are in Pathfinder outside of continuing the 3.5e bull of "Skeletons and Zombies are evil". Both have it that by default undead are evil, except for very specific cases and that because they're sentient beings and not made of their alignment that they can change their alignment. For godsake, the closest they really got to Good undead were "Elves can be non-evil liches because elves be awesome, lol" and "These undead are good... but they aren't undead, they're deathless. Completely different and powered by positive energy rather than that icky negative energy".
At least Pathfinder made their "Good Undead" not pseudo-undead so it fits the established metaphysics better by making them outsiders.
and paladins can be any corner alignment
You mean with the variant rules. And so far in PF we have LG Paladins, CE Paladins, LE Paladins, LN Paladins, and NG Paladins... which is more than 3rd edition has.
(or any alignment with ToB).
That's crusader, not paladin. If you're counting that as a paladin, then how does Warpriest not count as a Paladin?
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.You've played Pathfinder for 17 years?
DnD 1st edition up to pathfinder all of which had the alignment system that hasn't changed much. So I can say that I have had expereince with the alignment system for quite awhile. If you feel you need to quantify that pathfinder hasn't been out that long that is fine but the alignment system has I feel your just splitting hairs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Don't judge me, love me *kicks a dog*
-Later-
Whadda ya mean I lose my paladin powers?! Worst game! This is... this is all alignments fault!!
Seems like DM vrs player issue more then a game system issue to me. Maybe they should put out a guide for how to use alignment responsibly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly on topic, but sort of related, since one thing a new edition would need would be better support for high-level play:
Godbound looks promising for stealing ideas taking inspiration from (review and page to download PDF of beta). I've only gotten through the introductory pages of the rather large PDF, but already find myself wondering about a Pathfinder conversion of this . . . I have yet to read the mechanics to judge them, but the concept sounds totally awesome (and I might add, disturbingly prophetic . . .).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Looks at my near-falling-apart copy of Complete Divine (I really gotta replace this with a PDF version soon)*
On page six of Complete Divine, it states clerics may follow a pantheon, and select two domains from any of the gods in the pantheon. The cleric's alignment must match at least one god in the pantheon, even if your alignment is opposed to another god in the same pantheon.
Note, however, that the exact wording it uses is
The cleric's alignment must match the alignment of some deity in the pantheonSo it may mean that if a pantheon has, for example, only gods of the four corner alignments, then a cleric of that pantheon could only be one of the corner alignments,which is more restrictive in some sense that the single-deity option, unless the pantheon in question has enough distinct alignments. I think the point PossibleCabbage was trying to make is that a cleric of a pantheon of gods, even one with gods having diametrically opposed alignments, is very much available in 3.5, while it isn't in Pathfinder.
That could much easier be served in PF by just using the worshipping a concept rule. Where you worship the ideals and grace of the pantheon.
In case you need a refresher (since the definitions of what "usually" and "always" mean were left out of Pathfinder), the glossary in the MM defines the alignment in statblocks to mean:
The definitions of usually was left out because in Pathfinder the bestiary says that it acts identically to how "Usually" worked in 3.5e, except for extraplanar beings and non-sentient creatures in which case it acts as "Always" did in 3.5e (including that even they can really have individuals that don't match their alignment, but they are ridiculously rare). This means that undead are "Usually" evil outside of mindless ones and extraplanar undead (such as the bodak).
There are probably many more Always Evil undead in 3rd edition than there are in PF because only a handful of undead are extraplanar or mindless (skeletons, zombies, nightshades, bodaks, devourers are the ones on the top of my head).
Eberron alignment stuff
Eberron's houserule of "Alignment basically doesn't matter or exist so that NPC's can be more interesting and morally-nuanced", actually works better in Pathfinder because Pathfinder actually has rules for removing alignment and subjective alignment.
The Crusader was meant to replace the paladin, just as the warblade was meant to replace the fighter, so I counted it as a paladin. It's essentially their "unchained paladin." Paizo's Warpriest wasn't supposed to replace any class.
Many people consider it "Paladin without being restricted to good", because it is literally "Divine Warrior Guy" in a game where paladin is the "Divine Warrior Guy limited to Lawful Good alignment".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Merry Christmas. :)
And the same to you (and everyone else)
A truce at Christmas? Sure. Merry Christmas, Happy Hearth's Warming Eve, and QISmaS DatIvjaj'.
Incidentally, what year was that original Christmas Armistice in WWI? Is this the centennial anniversary?
Off topic,
but I think it was the very FIRST Christmas of WWI where the German/Central Powers and Allied forces all got out of the trenches.
The Generals and Commanders were aghast and tried to ensure it never occurred again after that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly on topic, but sort of related, since one thing a new edition would need would be better support for high-level play:
Godbound looks promising for
stealing ideastaking inspiration from (review and page to download PDF of beta). I've only gotten through the introductory pages of the rather large PDF, but already find myself wondering about a Pathfinder conversion of this . . . I have yet to read the mechanics to judge them, but the concept sounds totally awesome (and I might add, disturbingly prophetic . . .).
Mr James Jacobs has said in previous threads that he will like to write a high level guide, but who knows how well it would sell, we can only hope that somehow he gets the time to write it and Paizo gives the good to go to publish it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Update to above: page to download newer version (1.0) of Godbound beta. Still haven't had a chance to read more than the previous versions' introductory pages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas. Truce over. Back to it.
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.
Tectorman: I think you're elevating the rules to a position over the GM of any given campaign that is not shared by most others. The GM is always more important than the rules in any Pathfinder game that's not PFS.
I play a lot of PbP and there are a lot of recruitment for campaigns that I would love to throw my hat in but one of the requirements of the recruitment is something like "No gunslingers or monks or ninjas or samurais". Now considering three of my first character concepts ever where a monk, a gunslinger and a ninja I feel excluded by that restriction. Now by the rules I should be able to play a multiclass ninja/gunslinger/samurai if I want but the GM has said that they don't want that. And that's okay. It's just not a game for me.
The same is true for pretty much every aspect of the game including alignment. If your character concept doesn't fit what a GM wants from their game then that's not going to fly no matter what the blurb on alignment may or may not be in the core rule book.
Okay. This is the importance I'm giving the rules.
When/if you're playing a game that portrays the same sort of genre as Pathfinder but isn't Pathfinder and so does not by default have Pathfinder's quirks regarding the forced marriage of game elements and roleplaying aspects (including but not limited to alignment), how likely is it that you'll see Pathfinder's roleplaying restrictions crop up out of nowhere anyway? After all, the GM can do anything so shouldn't you be just as on your guard against this sort of thing outside of Pathfinder as inside Pathfinder? And shouldn't you be constantly on your guard, no matter how many games you play using that other game system or how many new groups you look for or how many different game systems you try out?
Let's say you're playing Pathfinder. Monks do not typically go on year-long oath-quests, as in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. Spellcasters specializing in the use of fire are not typically specifically hampered when it comes to learning spells of water, as in Anima Beyond Fantasy. A mage's very ability to even cast his spells at all is not typically dependent on not just wearing his wizarding robes as opposed to any other garb, but making sure he has the right color robe, as in Ironclaw. But the GM can do anything. So shouldn't you be looking at things like that dropping into your Pathfinder game anyway? And even if you have played a game like that, what about your next Pathfinder game? And the one after that? And after that? And the entire rest of your Pathfinder career, while we're at it? Did you have to go your entire Pathfinder career across how many games, tables, and groups in dread that the houserule "Dwarves can only be Clerics" would show up every single time?
What game elements already exist are the ones most likely to continue to exist. It's just that simple. That makes any suggestion of change an uphill battle on the player's part, even when the GM does not otherwise care, for or against. He doesn't want Monks to be lawful, but it's what's already there so it's even money that it'll still be there. Ditto the next Pathfinder group. And the next. And the next. It's unjustifiably exhausting and disheartening to expect to be told "no" everywhere.
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.
Wait. How are the other five players' fun limited by what the sixth player wanted to play? Other than by having to tolerate and show the same courtesy as is being shown by the sixth? "I get to play the character I want to play anyway, but now I have to do it while you get to do the exact same thing. Such a burden on my part." Really? I called that selfish, and it applies.
Also, who says the other five players aren't wanting to "make it all about them"? They may feel as strongly about their Wizard who can cast enchantment spells despite not wearing purple robes, or their Dwarf who isn't a Cleric as the player who wants his not-Lawful but still ki-using Monk. The only difference is they lucked out and didn't end up a player in a game that prohibited not-Cleric Dwarfs or not-purple-robe-wearing Enchanters. Pure happenstance, and yet, one player is suddenly "making it all about him" while every other player just as passionate about their pet character-concepts is allegedly reasonable.
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.
(General "you" used here)
Wanting to play what one wants to play (including a game with alignments as an aspect of the world and its cosmology) is not selfish. Expressing no other care but that another player not be able to play what he wants to play is selfish. Having played a game with alignment as an aspect of the world and its cosmology, even while said alignment also served the interests of those who only want it there to limit their fellow players, is not selfish.
Being aware that "alignment as an aspect of the world and its cosmology" can be a part of the game without also serving to impede other players and dismissing the necessity of such a change, not for your sake (because you're good to go, either way) but for theirs (because, I don't know, "no skin off your teeth")? What the heck do you call that? Because I can't see how that doesn't cross the line into selfishness.
How about Pathfinder 2.0 with alignment, but with a large sidebar of a fleshed-out version of the Unchained rules for removing alignment?For example. Or, to accomodate players like Tectorman, do it the other way round and make core without alignment but optionally add alignment for those who want to have it in their games. Though I think that your solution feels more natural, given the system's history.
edit: and just as my last try to find out if I'm only misunderstanding his position:
In Pathfinder RPG, there is no Warforged race. Now a player comes at my table and asks if he still can play a Warforged. My answer most probably would be: Well, ok, officially there are none in Golarion (or every other setting but Eberron) but let's sit together and find out how we can change that for our game.
In Pathfinder RPG, Paladins are defined as Lawful Good only. Now a player comes at my table and asks if he can play a not-LG-paladin. My answer would most probably be: Well, ok, officially there are none in Golarion (and basically every other D&D-like setting) but let's sit together and find out how we can change that for our game.
So what about that is wrong, and why is it wrong?
There's a difference between "the designers haven't created that game element (the Warforged) yet" and "the designers have created exactly that game element (the not-LG Paladin), they just turned right around and blocked it off behind an alignment restriction". In the first case, it's a matter of the finite game books only having so much space and things only being able to be released as they're developed. When Pathfinder came out with the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary, nothing about the absence of a Warforged race so far ever said "And we'll never make a living construct race ever". Indeed, we now have the Wyrwood. But by creating the Paladin (step one), and then taking the additional and separate step of putting an alignment restriction on it (step two), they communicated "That sort of a character concept is Badwrongfun and while we can't go to your house and make you never play a not-LG Paladin, we can make it as much of an uphill battle as possible."
And no, the fact that the restriction actually comes from 3.5 doesn't change anything. Regardless of where it comes from, it communicates that disdain and intolerance and the conscious choice to leave the restriction in Pathfinder is just as wrong as creating it in the first place.
I play a lot of PbP and there are a lot of recruitment for campaigns that I would love to throw my hat in but one of the requirements of the recruitment is something like "No gunslingers or monks or ninjas or samurais". Now considering three of my first character concepts ever where a monk, a gunslinger and a ninja I feel excluded by that restriction. Now by the rules I should be able to play a multiclass ninja/gunslinger/samurai if I want but the GM has said that they don't want that. And that's okay. It's just not a game for me.
Now imagine that by the rules, monks have to be CN because they're based on someone's image of a drunken-master. And that samurais can use katanas, and only katanas, because the writer thinks that the class is super-powerful and must be counter-balanced by this restriction. And that gunslingers must be human, because there are no demihumans in the westerns that the class is based on. And now imagine that the rules contain many other restrictions and wrinkles, so that despite the game's zillion options, it may be a non-trivial task to play a character you can get excited about, depending on which options a given DM allows.
Sure, you can always ask a DM for special dispensation to ignore this or that restriction, but most DMs you meet think at least some of those restrictions are warranted, even if only because they're printed in the rules. Or they treat these restrictions as a litmus test -- those who can accept all the arbitrary restrictions are deemed team players, while those who ask for dispensation (or too many) are deemed problem players and are not invited back. And sure, you can play other games, but there are other parts of PF you really like. And besides, PF is pretty well-known and easy to find games of.
So even though these restrictions ought to be a non-issue because it's all in the DM's hands, and somewhere out there there are DMs who are happy to both allow these classes and disregard their restrictions...finding one can get mighty time-consuming, energy-consuming, and frustrating. All because the writers saw fit to not only write the samurai, gunslinger, and ninja around their own personal tastes and perceptions -- but also explicitly excluded other interpretations of those classes.
I hope you can see why this isn't just a matter of individual DM preference.
QFT
And, again, the players who pass the litmus test and thus get designated "team players" are not necessarily team players at all. All they did was luck out by pure chance and have a favorite character whose successful expression in-game didn't trip over any of those arbitrary restrictions.
I should not feel like I'm dodging a bullet just for being able to create a character without fuss for frelling once.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One other thing.
Who has read Horror Adventures? Anyone familiar with pages 190 and 191 at the beginning of chapter six? To sum it up, the book and its writers completely step outside of the context of the game for a moment to talk about the role of consent in any given horror game. Essentially, that it is vital, not just from the perspective of characters in-universe or players and GMs but just from the standpoint of the basic respect and consideration a decent human being should show another.
That signing up for a Pathfinder game does not auto-equate to playing in a horror game. That signing up for a horror game does not auto-equate necessarily to the specific horror themes the GM originally had in mind. That, while yes, one solution to a failed meeting of the minds is the player finding something else to do in the meantime, just as much weight is placed on the solution where the GM changing the offending aspect.
That players, as human beings worthy of the basic respect due a human being, have certain boundaries that are to be considered sacrosanct and inviolable. He need not even provide an explanation what they are or what their specific parameters are.
Bravo on this section. But the whole time I read it, I couldn't help but think "Where the blithering hell was this in the Core Rulebook?!!"
Because people don't just have sacrosanct boundaries based on what scares them on a superficial or a soul-deep level. You know what else is just as fundamental and just as personal? Their basic view of right and wrong!! Is this an evil deed? Is that a good deed? Is it to be considered in conjunction with these other deeds? How much weight does it have? How much does knowledge and intent count? Ditto for law versus chaos (or group versus individual or discipline versus undiscipline or whatever dichotomy you think law versus chaos is supposed to be).
A player signing up for a Pathfinder game is not necessarily signing up for any explorations into defining/limiting cosmic truths. He may not even hold that such things can be so limited and the very notion is offensive on a primal level. He is not "not a team player" for having such objections. And while yes, he may sometimes have to find something else to do in the meantime, it should only ever be sometimes. He should no more be expecting to have to walk out on every single Pathfinder group he comes across than a player bothered by, say, torture or sexual violence should find those themes front and center in every Pathfinder group he comes across.
But we don't have that. Golarion's alignment is automatically a part of Pathfinder. It says or suggests certain specific things about ultimate cosmic truths and their very nature. If you're bothered by that when it crops up, oh well. It's nothing important, just your fundamental view of right and wrong. What does it matter how it gets trampled? And because you can't play Schrodinger's Paladin who simultaneously falls and hasn't yet fallen, yes, there will be trampling. One view of right and wrong MUST give way to another. There can be no middle ground. And you're supposed to be okay with that, not raise a fuss, or you're "not a team player".
Combine that with the section in Ultimate Campaign on page 137 about Forced Alignment Change. Namely, that it's likely to be a departure from what the player wanted to play in the first place and so should not overstay its welcome. The logical extension of which is that if I thought my ki-using Monk needed to be lawful, I'm bloody well capable of making my character that way my own self. And if that's not what I'm making, maybe just maybe it's because it's not what I wanted to play. The section talks about how radical alignment shifts can ruin character concepts and come across as punishing the player. If true, how much more punishing is it to be told "you can't play this at all".
How does this get so bass-ackwards? How does the game occasionally get it so right but get it so wrong too often everywhere else?
@ Tectorman
#On Alignment,
"they communicated 'That sort of a character concept is Badwrongfun and while we can't go to your house and make you never play a not-LG Paladin, we can make it as much of an uphill battle as possible.' "
Did you ever consider that since the rules aren't rules but merely guidelines, that perhaps the alignment restrictions are more a statement of how they view the archetypical character that class represents?
Alignment itself isn't particularly well defined, but there are viewpoints that make those alignment restrictions absolutely correctly descriptive of the type of characters represented by those classes.
That is what a class is anyway, a starting point of a well-known character archetype.
# Type of Game
"When/if you're playing a game that portrays the same sort of genre as Pathfinder but isn't Pathfinder and so does not by default have Pathfinder's quirks regarding the forced marriage of game elements and roleplaying aspects (including but not limited to alignment), how likely is it that you'll see Pathfinder's roleplaying restrictions crop up out of nowhere anyway? "
This is stereotyping, a major tool of the subconcious mind that is unfortunately prone to error.
But basically, if someone is familiar with something and then get introduced to something similar, then they will basically fill in the gaps of what they expect based on the similar thing they are familiar with, at least until they find out it is different.
For example, if you don't mention the day-night cycle, then players will assume 24 hour days with sun rising in the east and setting in the west with a similar daylight duration to the real world. And they will make that assumption automatically without even thinking about it.
This is because people stereotype when possible (a major element of problem solving btw), so rather then consider everything about a setting undefined until it becomes defined, people will instead consider what is most likely the case dependant on similar things they already know.
If I were to describe a tiger as having four legs, stripes, and the ability to bite, then when I describe a [thing] as having four legs and stripes, you would guess that it could also bite, until I give additional detail such as telling you the second thing is a table, at which point your stereotype comparison changes and you assume the [thing] is incapable of biting. But what if it is an animated table with a maw?
|
|
@tectorman: Well, I guess we have a most fundamental difference in our approach to this topic.
The thing is, I'm much a setting guy and do not care about the rules so much. So I probably would be very fine, if all those restrictions would be removed in the generic rulebooks as long as they would directly be inserted into the setting. Wouldn't probably change the fact that some people would argue that those restrictions should be removed from the setting as well so I do not really win by this, but if it helps other people, than I've no qualms about it. What it would probably do is making me lose interest in the PFRPG alltogether, because at this point, there are other generic system that fit my taste much better, so what binds me to the rules (apart from being a busy guy whod don't want to put up with the necessary conversion work)is the connection to the setting and the APs.
And while I don't mind that you want to go against setting expections, it needs to be clear that this makes your character an exception from the rule. This is also why removing restrictions alltogether would not work for me. Paladin's alignment is kinda special to me because I really love the conept behind it, and yeah, you're right, I can insert those restrictions by myself. But it is only one example and there are other restrictions out there. Again, removing those restrictions alltogether would probably be enough to lose my interest in the setting as well.
And here's a very selfish thought: I'd much prefer if Paizo loses someone else as a customer for the way they have done things so far rather than if they lose me as a customer for changing things to much to accomodate other people. Already had this happen to me once and it still stings, so it's an experience I don't need to have a second time.
I'd love to find a middleground between us to have fun together, but as long as you keep calling me selfish for liking things how they are and don't feeling the need to change them, I don't believe that this is possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this awesome new Fighter guide (also see discussion thread for it) is enough to make your brain hurt when you realize how many disparate places you need to go for major Fighter options -- we need a Fighter Unchained just to get the major Fighter stuff in one place (for instance, get the Stamina options together with their corresponding feats, and that's just one example of things needing to be unscattered). Even if you did all the work yourself to splice PDFs and web pages (and time is money), even just considering printing expenses, after a certain point you will spend less to just pay Paizo to do it for you. Add to this a number of other things that need similar treatment (for instance, Sorcerer Bloodlines), and you go beyond needing just {Insert_Class_Here} Unchained, and you need a new Pathfinder Core Rulebook (regardless of whether it is called 2.0 or 1.5). Maybe not so much if you have all the stuff already AND have perfect memory of where to find everything (in which case you probably remember the great majority of it anyway without needing to look it up except for evidentiary purposes), but if not, it might be worth your money even if you have most of the stuff already.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compendiums would be awesome. Include errata and clarifications on things, and a few new feats and magic items and call it money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Tectorman
#On Alignment,
"they communicated 'That sort of a character concept is Badwrongfun and while we can't go to your house and make you never play a not-LG Paladin, we can make it as much of an uphill battle as possible.' "Did you ever consider that since the rules aren't rules but merely guidelines, that perhaps the alignment restrictions are more a statement of how they view the archetypical character that class represents?
Alignment itself isn't particularly well defined, but there are viewpoints that make those alignment restrictions absolutely correctly descriptive of the type of characters represented by those classes.
That is what a class is anyway, a starting point of a well-known character archetype.
Yes, but there's a way to communicate "here's the archetypal starting point" without also communicating "don't do it any other way". Because you're exactly correct. The flavor from which those various alignment restrictions stem are starting points, but that's just it. They are also only starting points. No one ever made a race where the starting point was the finish line. If they wanted to communicate those guidelines as guidelines, then they did so poorly. Because while alignment is not particularly well defined, they did very clearly define what happens when you violate it (no more class abilities, no more ability to take further levels, etc.). And I feel I should no more have to contort myself into those viewpoints that justify/apologize for alignment restrictions than a player uncomfortable with body horror should be expected to sit through a game with that as a central theme.
# Type of Game
"When/if you're playing a game that portrays the same sort of genre as Pathfinder but isn't Pathfinder and so does not by default have Pathfinder's quirks regarding the forced marriage of game elements and roleplaying aspects (including but not limited to alignment), how likely is it that you'll see Pathfinder's roleplaying restrictions crop up out of nowhere anyway? "
This is stereotyping, a major tool of the subconcious mind that is unfortunately prone to error.
But basically, if someone is familiar with something and then get introduced to something similar, then they will basically fill in the gaps of what they expect based on the similar thing they are familiar with, at least until they find out it is different.
For example, if you don't mention the day-night cycle, then players will assume 24 hour days with sun rising in the east and setting in the west with a similar daylight duration to the real world. And they will make that assumption automatically without even thinking about it.
This is because people stereotype when possible (a major element of problem solving btw), so rather then consider everything about a setting undefined until it becomes defined, people will instead consider what is most likely the case dependant on similar things they already know.
If I were to describe a tiger as having four legs, stripes, and the ability to bite, then when I describe a [thing] as having four legs and stripes, you would guess that it could also bite, until I give additional detail such as telling you the second thing is a table, at which point your stereotype comparison changes and you assume the [thing] is incapable of biting. But what if it is an animated table with a maw?
???
This doesn't sound like what I was talking about. It sounds like you're talking about confirmation bias, where you selectively perceive that which supports what you already believe.
I'm talking about a player who decides he doesn't particularly care for the risk of reality exploding all around him for using a psychic power, and so declines from playing Dark Heresy, where that's how psychic powers work and potential gruesome death is just a part of every Imperial Psyker's life. So he instead seeks out a Star Wars Saga Edition game, where using the Force doesn't involve anything like the sort of risk that a Dark Heresy Psyker faces. Is it possible that he might find a SWSE game where the GM decided for whatever reason to put in a reality-warping Russian Roulette aspect into using the Force, akin to Dark Heresy? Yes. I would imagine it to be rare, but it is theoretically possible. But what are the odds it would happen a second time with a different SWSE group? Or a third?
I would call those odds infinitesimal at this point. And that was the point I was making there, that while a GM may do whatever he wants, what rules already do exist do bear an influence on what any given GM will end up doing. And that since that influence in Pathfinder in the guise of alignment restrictions does not work for me for the reasons I've illustrated already, I believe I am placing exactly as much emphasis on those rules as I should.
I'd love to find a middleground between us to have fun together, but as long as you keep calling me selfish for liking things how they are and don't feeling the need to change them, I don't believe that this is possible.
Thing is, as far as I can tell, we're already there. Right here:
The thing is, I'm much a setting guy and do not care about the rules so much. So I probably would be very fine, if all those restrictions would be removed in the generic rulebooks as long as they would directly be inserted into the setting.
There you go. There's your middle ground. I don't have the books telling me my preferred playstyle is unwelcome, no default level of disdain, no implicit uphill battle. You still have the setting itself with all of its lore intact. We're square.
And here's a very selfish thought: I'd much prefer if Paizo loses someone else as a customer for the way they have done things so far rather than if they lose me as a customer for changing things to much to accomodate other people. Already had this happen to me once and it still stings, so it's an experience I don't need to have a second time.
Until here, where you lose me. That's my one remaining point of contention. That "that other guy is still miserable; oh well, that's fine" could still on the table as a viable outcome for any hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0.
Because both of us should be able to sit down, relax, and enjoy this game with a minimum of fuss. Without being told we're "selfish" OR "not a team player" for doing so. I don't believe our two needs from this game are irreconcilable or mutually exclusive.
Diane Duane is the Star Trek author who wrote the brilliantly insightful (though nowadays, noncanonical) into Spock's world and culture and history entitled, well, "Spock's World". And there's one line in part that I remember well: "The spear in the other's heart is the spear in your own; you are he."
That said, the middle ground is where we meet in the middle. So where is that? Do we both say "that other guy is miserable, oh well"? I find that unnecessary and distasteful; I don't want that inflicted on you anymore than I do myself. Or do we (both of us) say "both of us should get to enjoy this game, AND nothing short of BOTH of us enjoying ourselves in this game is acceptable"?
I'll tell you that you enjoying a hypothetical Pathfinder is just as important as me enjoying it. But I need to know that I have that same consideration from you.
This:
So I probably would be very fine, if all those restrictions would be removed in the generic rulebooks as long as they would directly be inserted into the setting.
qualifies, as long as you're not also going to settle for less.
You love the concept of the Paladin? My understanding is that "strive for the best for everyone and don't settle for less than that" is a big part of the concept of the Paladin.
So where are we putting this spear?
...
And that said, have a happy new year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Core Rulebook Delux seems to be the consensus of what people want.
- Core rules rewritten with the newer books in mind as far as terms and interactions are concerned.
- Feats organised more sensibility.
- Those nice little indents or book tags for quick lookups.
- Include a portion of the Advanced Players Guide and Bestiary 1 for a few references. (Like what the Beginner Box did)
But that said a lot of people have staunchly voiced that they will not buy a new book because they've already got one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I also imagine that if they updated the online PRD it would create a massive split and all the rules argument threads would start to resemble some sort of Rwandan Genocide, but with mashy keyboards and name calling.
One of the biggest draws to Pathfinder I enjoy is how easy it is to get your hands on resources, other than a fully digitized app that has the book with handy look-up links and digital repositories I don't see how you could improve the system enough to warrant firing up the printing press again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That "that other guy is still miserable; oh well, that's fine" could still on the table as a viable outcome for any hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0.
It's not about wishing anyone to be miserable. It's about the recognition that sometimes a thing can't be for everyone. That's what I had to accept with 4E, that's what other people probably might have to accept with Pathfinder.
This said:
ThisSo I probably would be very fine, if all those restrictions would be removed in the generic rulebooks as long as they would directly be inserted into the setting.qualifies, as long as you're not also going to settle for less.
I meant that as I said it. It would make me dislike the rulebooks even more, I still don't see any necessity for it, and I guess it would still not change the fact that you can't simply do anything you want in any game you partake, because it's still the GM who defines what's allowed and what's not, but in the end, it's the setting that needs restrictions to give it structure, not the rules (technically they do, but not in any setting defining sense). So if that's needed to compromise, I'm game.
The question is: What do we do about those products in the Pathfinder Companion line? Because I still would expect that there are setting-relevant products which interpret the rules in a setting-specific way. And for economic reasons, that very much means that Paizo still might publish rules in those product that don't exist in the generic rulebooks and that have restrictions you will have again to talk with your GM about. Like setting-specific Prestige classes or archetypes, magic items or feats, spells, maybe even whole subsystems, and so on.
So if I leave your rulebooks alone, can you leave those products alone? Or do we need to have the same discussion again? Because that might very well be where my will to compromise ends.
Still a happy new year to you as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted to communicate those guidelines as guidelines, then they did so poorly.
I don't think this actually matters. The 3.x books are constantly reminding you that they are guidelines. Those core books are littered with that fact. Yet it still became the norm to treat the rules as immutable as the rules to chess.
I have no faith that the general player base would consider a ruleset as mere guidelines, no matter how clear it is said, nor how much it is encouraged.
It sounds like you're talking about confirmation bias, where you selectively perceive that which supports what you already believe.
Incorrect (though I admit, I'm terrible at communication).
To use your example, if you make a homebrew setting and say it is similar to Star Wars, then players would assume using special powers would like using the force even though it wasn't explicitly stated. Therefore, if the gm wanted that detail changed, they would need to be explicit about it because players wouldn't have zero expectations until told, rather they would form expectations based on Star Wars and start dreaming about jedi-like characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those statements seem contradictory, because in the example provided everything you want still exists. Just in a way that doesn't force it upon another player who isn't as interested in those same things.
I would prefer my rulebooks to be more setting specific, meaning probably even more restrictions than they already contain. For my taste, the rulebooks already are too generic, so making them even more generic by removing the fluff still contained would increase my aversion. But that's something I'm willing to give up if this change will make other players benefit. What's contradictory about that?
Now a certain other game changed so much that I lost any motivation to play it. Other players had and have a lot of fun with though. That's a matter of fact, and it has nothing do with what I later said about my will to compromise.
Like somehow merely allowing someone a thousand miles away you've never met before and will likely never meet ever to play the game differently than you is a sacrifice you're making.
This is about my explicit wish to get setting-specific rules one way or the other. Like offered in the Pathfinder Companions. To lose them just for the benefit for someone else would indeed be a sacrifice I'm not willing to make. So my question was and is (maybe also to you): Can you accept the existence of setting-specific rules if you get enough of the generic stuff you want to have, as I'm willing to accept the existence of generic stuff as long as I'm getting what I want?
Because the sacrifice is in losing what I hold dear, not in allowing you anything. I'm in no position to do that, so I don't even think in this direction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also imagine that if they updated the online PRD it would create a massive split and all the rules argument threads would start to resemble some sort of Rwandan Genocide, but with mashy keyboards and name calling.
One of the biggest draws to Pathfinder I enjoy is how easy it is to get your hands on resources, other than a fully digitized app that has the book with handy look-up links and digital repositories I don't see how you could improve the system enough to warrant firing up the printing press again.
How exactly an update to PRD would generate a split and chaos?
A better PRD and to be more precise a better Index seems to be what most people are looking for. Imagine if you could just click in a tab for Fighter and see all the info related to the Fighter, all the feats, archetypes, items, relevant rules, etc. the would be pretty cool and no need for new books, I mean the info is already there it only needs to be organized and indexed.
I also imagine that if they updated the online PRD it would create a massive split and all the rules argument threads would start to resemble some sort of Rwandan Genocide, but with mashy keyboards and name calling.
One of the biggest draws to Pathfinder I enjoy is how easy it is to get your hands on resources, other than a fully digitized app that has the book with handy look-up links and digital repositories I don't see how you could improve the system enough to warrant firing up the printing press again.
How exactly an update to PRD would generate a split and chaos?
A better PRD and to be more precise a better Index seems to be what most people are looking for. Imagine if you could just click in a tab for Fighter and see all the info related to the Fighter, all the feats, archetypes, items, relevant rules, etc. the would be pretty cool and no need for new books, I mean the info is already there it only needs to be organized and indexed.
I know of wikis organized like this. The expectation is that every section will be updated as soon as possible. The reality usually is that sections can be weeks or months out of date (or, on larger ones, years).
While I think it's a good idea in theory, I've never seen it work that well in practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also imagine that if they updated the online PRD it would create a massive split and all the rules argument threads would start to resemble some sort of Rwandan Genocide, but with mashy keyboards and name calling.
One of the biggest draws to Pathfinder I enjoy is how easy it is to get your hands on resources, other than a fully digitized app that has the book with handy look-up links and digital repositories I don't see how you could improve the system enough to warrant firing up the printing press again.
How exactly an update to PRD would generate a split and chaos?
A better PRD and to be more precise a better Index seems to be what most people are looking for. Imagine if you could just click in a tab for Fighter and see all the info related to the Fighter, all the feats, archetypes, items, relevant rules, etc. the would be pretty cool and no need for new books, I mean the info is already there it only needs to be organized and indexed.
I know of wikis organized like this. The expectation is that every section will be updated as soon as possible. The reality usually is that sections can be weeks or months out of date (or, on larger ones, years).
While I think it's a good idea in theory, I've never seen it work that well in practice.
Because those sites are not back up by Paizo, but imagine if the PRD was like that