Do You GM or Play with Flair?

[Val'bryn2]

I would not be interested in this, because the alignment restrictions seem to be of suspect rationality. A barbarian forbidden from obeying "civilized" law? That means, by default, they cannot obey the laws of their own tribe. They would have to murder everyone, because they are forbidden from following the laws against murder. A fighter can only be true neutral? Why? Your argument that they focus too much on combat skills makes no sense, because your alignment could have caused you to seek the skills, so that you can protect people.

[WormysQueue]

Val'bryn2 wrote:

I would not be interested in this, because the alignment restrictions seem to be of suspect rationality. A barbarian forbidden from obeying "civilized" law? That means, by default, they cannot obey the laws of their own tribe.

Only if you take the term out of context. The old greeks coined the term barbarian especially for people they thought to be less civilized than themselves (which basically meant every people that did not speak greek). So Barbarian is by definition a synonym for being "uncivilized".

No we know that this wasn't true, so it's perfectly logical for a barbarian to hold onto the laws of his tribe all the while despising the laws of the "civilized" world (which all too often only pretends to be so).

[LittleMissNaga]

That... Is not what I expected you to mean by 'flair' when I read the title.

Based on your latest clarification, it sounds as though you're trying to turn characters into caricatures. I could see that being fun for a bit in a short-term, semi-silly campaign that's all about playing the old stereotypes straight, acknowledging them in-character, and poking fun at them, but I could see it get tiring fast.

(Also, Pathfinder is my system of choice because of all the options. Limitations run diractly counter to the core reason that I like this game more than any other options.)

[Steve Geddes]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I’ve been hankering for a homebrew campaign, and I’ve got a few ideas to add a new spin on the old classics. Gygax and Arneson put campaign-inspired flair into many classes as they appeared, and I think it’d be fun if every class had a bit of flair. Potential rules details which I may have overlooked aside — I can always make a ruling as questions come up — what do you think of my campaign-inspired ideas? Would you want to play in this campaign? If you ever DM, have you ever done anything like this?

I wouldn't mind, personally. I find restrictiins on character options to be a useful way to define a campaign or world. Typically, we've used it around races or cultures rather than alignment (so we've had a world where humans are divine casters, elves are bards/sorcerers and wizards were something else, I can't remember what now..).

If alignment is going to be so prevalent and restrictive, I think it should be much more objective and "in focus" than it is in a typical campaign. I'd think of it more like the force from Star Wars, rather than the more usual interpretation people have of it being a model of real world morality. So I'd expect the world inhabitants to know, reference and act on alignment.

If you use the "usual" interpretation, you invite questions like "why can't my barbarian become law abiding?" If alignment is something else - some all-pervading, metaphysical force of nature (like The Force) then you can answer such questions via your quirky, yet internally consistent metaphysics.

[quibblemuch]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm a fan of consistency, so I decided it could be fun to add campaign-specific requirements to all classes, rather than just some. The paladin being the poster-boy example of campaign-specific requirements, of course.

Ah. I think I see better what you're getting at. And I understand more my own initial objections to your proposed solution.

What tangled me up at first were the twin issues of alignment and punishment. The constraints you were putting on the classes felt forced and like they were backed up by force, if that makes sense. A world where every single person who becomes a fighter must be strictly neutral feels fairly artificial--that's a lot of people, generally, and the idea that there is something inherently neutral about learning to swing a sword really well doesn't resonate with me.

In a broader sense, the universalization of these alignment traits (I think) doesn't help solve your problem. If you make "quirky" consistent and universal, then it is no longer quirky. It's just another tax everyone has to pay for doing business in your game world.

Mandating alignment behaviors for an entire world immediately begs players to say "EVERY fighter is neutral? What about a city guard who fights for justice? What about a warlord who seeks to slaughter everyone who isn't him or his kin?" And mandating quirky along strict lines... well, that's about as unquirky as you can get.

A different way of achieving the quirkiness you are after (which still introduces constraints--I'm not against constraints on PCs, if it serves a purpose), is to start local. Rather than saying "All fighters must be neutral," try saying "Your characters start in an area where everyone who learns to be a fighter does so under the guidance of the gruffly neutral Master Neutralos. His draconian neutrality on all matters has probably rubbed off on you somewhat." And then create some cool traits/feats that only fighters can take, provided they adhere to Master Neutralos' strict neutrality.

Similarly, you could say "If you are playing a barbarian, then you will be from one of the Five Tribes of the Outer Law, who live beyond the Pales and Walls of civilization. Here are the different codes of conduct for the Five Tribes--and here are some benefits you get from adhering to those. If you violate those tenets, you may find yourself Outcast, without the backing of your Tribe or your ancestors..."

The difference is in specificity. You still accomplish the goal of having each character class be, by virtue of being its class, embedded in the world in a unique way. But you don't blur that uniqueness all together by making everyone a "paladin but with a different set of conditions to yank your chain and take away your stuff."

Incidentally, paladins in Golarion are really no longer as people often envision them. Check out the different codes. In one situation, I had a player with a paladin of Iomedae who did something that was in line with his code (and alignment). Had he been a paladin of Sarenrae, there would have been a problem. So the same class offered options within the strictures of its alignment requirements, and gave the player the chance to play the kind of holy warrior they wanted.

You may still get players who look at your careful work and say "But I want to play a chaotic barbarian from a big city". If/when that happens, it's fine to say "Well, that's a neat character idea, but it won't work with this campaign. Save it for a different show."

[Vidmaster7]

A rare sight. serious down to business quibblemuch. I don't know how I feel about this.

[quibblemuch]

WormysQueue wrote:

...I'm not at all interested in running a game for characters that are played against the setting expectations.

I agree completely--and my question about restrictions and restraints on character creation was about these specific restrictions.

It's a giant red flag when you say something like "I'm running an urban adventure involving primarily humans and a lot of social encounters" and somebody shows up with a goblin mad bomber alchemist and says "But it's in the campaign setting, you have to let me play it, don't limit my options!" Or players who read the Player's Guide to Adventure Path X where it specifically says "Don't be an evil Asmodean" and they show up with an evil Asmodean. There's nothing creative or clever about simply doing the opposite of what is expected. If anything, that's less creative than the expected.

[quibblemuch]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

A rare sight. serious down to business quibblemuch. I don't know how I feel about this.

I'll try not to let it become a habit...

[Val'bryn2]

WormysQueue wrote:

Val'bryn2 wrote:

I would not be interested in this, because the alignment restrictions seem to be of suspect rationality. A barbarian forbidden from obeying "civilized" law? That means, by default, they cannot obey the laws of their own tribe.

Only if you take the term out of context. The old greeks coined the term barbarian especially for people they thought to be less civilized than themselves (which basically meant every people that did not speak greek). So Barbarian is by definition a synonym for being "uncivilized".

No we know that this wasn't true, so it's perfectly logical for a barbarian to hold onto the laws of his tribe all the while despising the laws of the "civilized" world (which all too often only pretends to be so).

Not quite, it was for anyone of a different culture, including the Egyptians, which were about as far from the typical example of barbarian as you can get. There were even cases of it being applied to anyone not particularly from YOUR city-state, as well as to the peoples of the Persian empire, which were pretty clearly NOT from an inferior culture, but more to the point, they were clearly civilized while being referred to as barbarian.

Still, my point is that by the very fact that they have their code, they have even a rudimentary civilization, and by requiring that they go against "civilized" law they cannot follow their own path.

[Klorox]

Technically, barbarians were any non greek speakers from whom the greek did not feel they had much to learn... Egyptians, though foreign speakers were the repository of much ancient wisdom, and thus were NOT 'barbarians', even before Alexander's conquest of Egypt made them honorary Greeks.

[Val'bryn2]

Klorox wrote:

Technically, barbarians were any non greek speakers from whom the greek did not feel they had much to learn... Egyptians, though foreign speakers were the repository of much ancient wisdom, and thus were NOT 'barbarians', even before Alexander's conquest of Egypt made them honorary Greeks.

Actually, Clement of Alexandria, as one example, referred to Egyptians as barbarians, even when talking of their impressive knowledge of astrology. Barbarian didn't mean uncivilized, it just meant that you didn't understand the language they spoke.

[Klorox]

Clement of Alexandria said 'barbarian' to mean 'pagan' pejoratively, he's not representative of pre christian thought.

[ConanTheGrammarian]

Klorox wrote:

Clement of Alexandria said 'barbarian' to mean 'pagan' pejoratively, he's not representative of pre christian thought.

Given the paucity of primary sources, can anyone really be said to be representative of the era?

I mean, aside from Agatharchides. That guy was, like, all up in that Hellenism, what what?

[WormysQueue]

quibblemuch wrote:

The difference is in specificity. You still accomplish the goal of having each character class be, by virtue of being its class, embedded in the world in a unique way.

This is a great point and something I very much go for if I put such restrictions into place. I need a reason for that, because the players will probably ask the question "why" it is that way, and I think that the answer should should be told in terms of the setting, not of the mechanics or the GM's personal preferences

[Quark Blast]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I’ve been hankering for a homebrew campaign, and I’ve got a few ideas to add a new spin on the old classics. Gygax and Arneson put campaign-inspired flair into many classes as they appeared, and I think it’d be fun if every class had a bit of flair. Potential rules details which I may have overlooked aside — I can always make a ruling as questions come up — what do you think of my campaign-inspired ideas? Would you want to play in this campaign? If you ever DM, have you ever done anything like this?

The Barbarian
** spoiler omitted **
...

"What do you think of my campaign-inspired ideas?"

Overall I think these are some very yoink-worthy ideas. Were my campaign still a happening thing I might try something like this.

"Would you want to play in this campaign?"
I would want to play in this campaign as long as my halfling barbarian is allowed to ride his Velociraptor into battle. That point wasn't clear.

"If you ever DM, have you ever done anything like this?"
No, not exactly. I did have wizard schools - think Hogwarts-as-a-guild. There were certain benefits of staying a member of the club. That ended up being mostly fluff for my campaign though since I only had one player play a wizard and that only part time.

[Berti Blackfoot]

Classes that have alignment restrictions also get benefits to go along with them. This places alignment restrictions on almost every class, but does not offer anything in return.

It sounds like it's good rules for NPCs, or factions players might join or work with, or prestige classes. Actually it's not even factions but more like guilds that control resources and training.

But as such it's far too limiting. Besides being fun for only a small percent of potential players, making them difficult to attract, putting this much restriction will be unplayable. Look at all the conflicts for Paladins alone, now imagine that much conflict and arguing with every single person at the table. Because that is exactly what will happen when their powers disappear.

[Ventnor]

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I’ve been hankering for a homebrew campaign, and I’ve got a few ideas to add a new spin on the old classics. Gygax and Arneson put campaign-inspired flair into many classes as they appeared, and I think it’d be fun if every class had a bit of flair. Potential rules details which I may have overlooked aside — I can always make a ruling as questions come up — what do you think of my campaign-inspired ideas? Would you want to play in this campaign? If you ever DM, have you ever done anything like this?

If you're going to do this, might as well go whole hog and have alignment restrictions on every school of magic.

Abjuration: Because these spells are created primarily to protect the caster and others, all abjurers must be neutral good.
Conjuration: Because many conjuration spells require the caster to try and forge relationships with the beings that they attempt to call, all conjurers must be lawful good.
Divination: Because they are especially attuned to the fate of all things, all diviners must be lawful neutral.
Enchantment: Because enchantment spells inherently attempt to dominate the wills of other people, all enchanters must be lawful evil.
Evocation: Because evocation spells cause destruction with no regard for who is hurt, all evokers must be chaotic evil.
Illusion: Because of the way illusion spells fool the senses, all illusionists must be chaotic neutral
Necromancy: Because of the way necromantic spells corrupt the soul, all necromancers must be neutral evil.
Transmutation: Because transmutation spells alter the natural body in beneficial ways, all transmuters must be chaotic good.

[claymade]

Normal Pathfinder Paladins and Clerics are one thing. They can certainly work... but the reasons they work include a couple different factors that the above solution seems to be missing. A few of the ones that jump out to me are as follows:

Plausible In-universe Justification

The alignment restrictions on Paladins and Clerics make total sense, given that their powers are given from outside entities for the specific purpose of championing certain principles. Should the character act contrary to those principles, it makes total sense that the granting entity would cease their support. Indeed, it would strain credulity were that not the case.

I realize that the suggested system also has attempts at such justification as well, but the key word here is "plausible". Many of the explanations took my suspension of disbelief out behind the woodshed and shot it in the head.

The idea that a Wizard, who has the arcane knowledge to study his way up from level 1 to level 11, becomes suddenly completely unable to muster the "discipline and dedication" required to learn better spells if his motivation for such study shifts organically over the course of the campaign is not something I find plausible. As though the desire to save the innocent was somehow an order of magnitude less capable of generating the required criteria of "discipline and dedication" than self-interest?

(Most humorously notable in how the reasons given for why the Wizard must be Lawful Neutral and why the Fighter can't be Lawful Neutral both basically boil down to that they wouldn't have enough "dedication" to their art if they were each others' alignment.)

Presence of Other Options

When a player picks a Paladin or a Cleric in Pathfinder, they do so knowing basically what they're getting into. A player who picks one of them (and reads the class description) understands that alignment is consequently going to play a fairly significant role in the game for them, and that they should be prepared for that sort of play experience.

But there were always far more other options for players who weren't interested in that sort of play experience. Not everyone enjoys the experience of having the viability of their character held hostage by alignment arguments and interpretations.

Alternatively, some players may be specifically interested in characters that develop and change organically (and substantially) based on their experiences. Paladins, obviously, are mechanically endangered by any change to their value systems that exceeds a certain threshold, so a player looking to play out grand redemption/corruption narratives would know that it might be best to avoid that class, and would presumably do so.

Fortunately, the vast majority of other Pathfinder classes didn't share that restriction, so the choices were still wide and numerous for both kinds of players. But in this system, the "safe" classes for players who don't want to have to be paranoid about how their alignment is changing (or players who enjoy having large degrees of character development based on their experiences in the game) each have far fewer choices to support that playstyle.

In short, one of the main reasons the Paladin does work in Pathfinder is specifically because classes like the Fighter also exist, and (even from the beginning) players who wanted to play a front-line-weapon-combat-type that could undergo a broader character development without being paranoid about it gimping their character could at least have somewhere to go.

The simple fact that an alignment-restricted Paladin is a viable play experience does not make it a good idea to enforce that style of play experience on such a wide scale. It makes about as much sense to me as arguing that the play experience of a 1/2 BAB, 9-level caster found in a Wizard is a perfectly valid play experience, so therefore we should make nearly every class a 1/2 BAB, 9-level caster.

Just because a certain play experience can work does not make it a good idea to stomp on the alternate forms of play experience that people also enjoy. Not to this extent.

Conclusion

The OP asked whether I'd want to play a campaign with these requirements. I wouldn't. And that's only partly because of the requirements themselves.

I mean, sure, the fact that (for instance) I would never get to try playing a Wizard would suck, since I don't particularly want to play a character who can't save too many orphans from being horribly slaughtered without wrecking his powers.

But it's more than just that.

Even if I happened (just by sheer luck) to have a character concept that I both wanted to play and also fit within the added constraints (and even if I was comfortable with the character never having any character development on a scale that would kill his effectiveness) the constraints themselves feel like a big, flashing red warning light, complete with accompanying siren blaring at ear-shattering decibels.

Because if a GM is willing to go to such contrived lengths to create extra punishments for any character development that dares to go outside the narrowed-from-Pathfinder confines of what they consider "allowable" for all the various classes, I have no particular faith that such a desire to control the players' play and characterization will end there.

[Ventnor]

Ventnor wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I’ve been hankering for a homebrew campaign, and I’ve got a few ideas to add a new spin on the old classics. Gygax and Arneson put campaign-inspired flair into many classes as they appeared, and I think it’d be fun if every class had a bit of flair. Potential rules details which I may have overlooked aside — I can always make a ruling as questions come up — what do you think of my campaign-inspired ideas? Would you want to play in this campaign? If you ever DM, have you ever done anything like this?

If you're going to do this, might as well go whole hog and have alignment restrictions on every school of magic.

Abjuration: Because these spells are created primarily to protect the caster and others, all abjurers must be neutral good.
Conjuration: Because many conjuration spells require the caster to try and forge relationships with the beings that they attempt to call, all conjurers must be lawful good.
Divination: Because they are especially attuned to the fate of all things, all diviners must be lawful neutral.
Enchantment: Because enchantment spells inherently attempt to dominate the wills of other people, all enchanters must be lawful evil.
Evocation: Because evocation spells cause destruction with no regard for who is hurt, all evokers must be chaotic evil.
Illusion: Because of the way illusion spells fool the senses, all illusionists must be chaotic neutral
Necromancy: Because of the way necromantic spells corrupt the soul, all necromancers must be neutral evil.
Transmutation: Because transmutation spells alter the natural body in beneficial ways, all transmuters must be chaotic good.

Forgot one:

Universalist: Because they have to balance the many different conflicting impulses of the different schools of magic that they learn, Universalist Wizards must be true neutral.

[Vidmaster7]

I was just sad there was no table avatars.