Do You GM or Play with Flair?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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:

Barbarians are paragons of the nomadic lifestyle and chosen of the ancestral spirits, who grant them unique boons. The ability to channel the spirits’ wrath is foremost among these boons, and requires the utmost focus and respect for the spirits’ wisdom and will. As such, a barbarian must be of Lawful alignment, and must obey the code of the ancestral spirits: Never settle for the ‘civilized’ life, never respect a ‘civilized’ law, and protect always the ancestral tradition. If he ever violates this code or ceases to be Lawful, a barbarian loses the ability to rage as well as all other class features. If his trespass was unintentional or coerced, a sacrifice of rare animals and herbs equaling 500 gp in value and a return to all requirements is sufficient to return his class features.

The Bard

Spoiler:

Bards are traveling minstrels and storytellers, transmitters of news, national history, and the cultural touchstones of legend and myth. As such, bards play an integral role in the fabric of their culture and society, and are welcomed as honored guests by all thanes, chieftains, chiefs, and kings. However, the life of a bard has its downsides — all bards take an oath to selflessly reject all titles and lands which they might otherwise be granted, and the bard’s particular traveling lifestyle requires dedication to one’s country. As such, a bard must be of Lawful alignment, and is furthermore barred from all Evil alignments. A bard who becomes Evil or non-Lawful can no long advance in bard levels. A renewal of her oath, a voluntary tax to her king of 500 gp, and a return to the Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good alignments allows a character to continue gaining bard levels.

The Cleric

Spoiler:

Clerics are the ministers of communities, and each cleric is a messenger and vessel of all gods. Some clerics favor one god over others, but no cleric is foolish enough to exclude any god of recognized importance from his prayers and invocations, no matter how much he may find a particular god distasteful. As such, a cleric must be of Lawful alignment, and a cleric who becomes non-Lawful loses all cleric class features and spells. A return to any Lawful alignment and an atonement spell is sufficient to return these features and spells.

The Druid

Spoiler:

Druids take an oath to protect not just their own kin, not just their own race, not just sentient life — but even the wild beasts and untamed foliage of nature. This oath, taken in the presence of the druidic order and the great nature spirits themselves, is a formalization of the highest form of altruism — a consideration of all actions within the context of all life, undistracted by the ideologies of Law or Chaos. As such, a druid must be of Neutral Good alignment, must not knowingly associate with Evil characters, and must never participate is the wholesale destruction of a plant or beast species. A druid who ceases to be Neutral Good or who violates her oath loses all of her druid class features. If her trespass was unintentional or coerced, a daily sacrifice of her own blood and a return to all requirements is sufficient to return her class features for 24 hours. This sacrifice reduces her hit points by one-tenth, and must be continued for one month before she permanently regains her class features.

The Fighter

Spoiler:

Fighters are masters of battle, with expertise and resilience beyond that of other mortals, achieved through an utter and complete dedication to their art. This focus allows no distractions from ideological extremes or other arts. As such, a fighter must be of True Neutral alignment. A fighter who strays from True Neutrality loses all class features, and all benefits gained via his fighter levels. A return to True Neutrality is sufficient to regain these features and benefits. Furthermore, a non-fighter cannot gain fighter levels, and a fighter who gains a non-fighter level can never again gain fighter levels.

The Monk

Spoiler:

Monks, like the first unarmed martial artists of history, exist in conflict with established societal norms. To protect themselves — often from their social betters — in a stifling hierarchy which does not allow them access to the weapons of war, these peasants have learned to use farming tools and their own bare hands as lethal weapons. As contradictions to their native society, a monk must be of Chaotic alignment. A monk who ceases to be Chaotic, or who uses any item which was made specifically for war — such as swords, war hammers, and other explicit weapons — can no longer advance in monk levels. A donation of 500 gp worth of foods and supplies to those under oppression, and a return to all requirements allows a character to continue gaining monk levels.

The Paladin

Spoiler:

Paladins are paragons of honor and virtue, and must be Lawful Good as per D&D tradition.

The Ranger

Spoiler:

Rangers form the military arm of the druidic order, and as such must maintain a universal concern for life, much like druids. Rangers are secondary servants of nature and are thus not required to take the druidic oath though, and are allowed to diffuse their concern with life with secondary ideologies. As such, a ranger can be of any Good alignment. A ranger who ceases to be Good loses all of his ranger class features. If his departure from Good was unintentional or coerced, a daily sacrifice of his own blood and a return to any Good alignment is sufficient to return his class features for 24 hours. This sacrifice reduces his hit points by one-tenth, and must be continued for one month before he permanently regains his class features.

The Rogue

Spoiler:

Rogues, while not all ruthless scoundrels as a rule, do practice a diverse skill set which violates the norms of honor and sincerity in favor of, at best, guile and dirty fighting. As such, a rogue is barred from all Lawful alignments. A rogue who becomes lawful loses all class features, until and if she returns to a non-Lawful alignment.

The Sorcerer

Spoiler:

Sorcerers are mortal manifestations of some supernatural or magical force, whether by heritage or by happenstance. As such, a sorcerer’s very soul is in part guided by her arcane influence, and she must thus be in harmony with that influence: A wild magic sorcerer must be of Chaotic alignment; a draconic heritage sorcerer must choose a true dragon type and adhere to that type’s alignment; and so on. A sorcerer who strays from her alignment requirement loses all sorcerer class features and spells, until and if she returns to the required alignment.

The Wizard

Spoiler:

Wizards must possess the utmost discipline and dedication to their craft in order to understand and master the arcane forces of magic. As such, a wizard must of Lawful Neutral alignment and must be ever-dedicated to her studies. As a result, a wizard must find or research a new spell at each level before she can advance to the next wizard level. Furthermore, a wizard who ceases to be Lawful Neutral or who takes a level in another class can never again gain another wizard level.

PS: I put this in the general forum because topics discussing alignment restrictions often appear here, but if the mods feel it is more appropriate in the homebrew forum feel free. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think alignment is mostly crap and alignment restrictions are total crap, so no I wouldn't like to play in a campaign like this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just looked up 'flair'. It means something like 'stylish elegance'. I don't think making all wizards Lawful Neutral (or any other alignment) contributes to this.

Would you enjoy endless debates along the lines of, "One of my PCs is a barbarian. He paid a small toll to enter the city instead of assaulting the guards. Does he fall?"

Also, if there can't be any evil fighters, wizards, bards, druids or rangers, it reduces the potential for creating villains. And it eliminates most forms of multi-classing, makes Eldritch Knights virtually impossible, etc.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Who is this meant to be fun for?

"Your character class is X. Here is exactly how you have to respond in any given circumstance. You will pay a tax for responding differently. You may also lose all your class abilities. And the assessment of the adequacy of your response is entirely subjective and infinitely arguable. Who's ready to roll some dice?"

I'm off to go furniture shopping.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

More helpfully:

One of the reasons people play RPGs (or any game) is to enjoy a sense of agency and choice. Your proposal diminishes that by eliminating options and mandating actions.

Try a thought experiment: Imagine a party of four players, where everyone happened to pick the alignments you ordain for their character classes (without knowing about your new proposed system). They RP those alignments perfectly.

Now imagine the same four players, showing up before a new campaign. They have created their characters. They are told they will each be playing alignment X. If they deviate from those alignments, their ability to play the game will be curtailed.

Which of the two scenarios do you imagine will more likely lead to an evening of friends hanging out and having a great time?

EDIT: Incidentally, your proposal is not a new idea. Back in 2nd ed. rangers had to be good aligned. Rogues couldn't be lawful. There were all kinds of alignment restrictions related to class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
I think alignment is mostly crap and alignment restrictions are total crap, so no I wouldn't like to play in a campaign like this.

Yeah, are all deities Lawful that a cleric should have to be too?

Also, PF did away with classes (paladins and monks) stopping being able to advance in their class if they multiclassed, reintroducing that kind of restrictions is silly, to boot, I don't see where the 'flair' is in your proposals.
Not to mention, monks are paragons of discipline, their lawfulness is an obvious matter, even if the rules they follow are not those of society at large, they are not capricious individualists, which is what chaotic alignment means.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, I wouldn't want to play or even RUN a campaign like this for the same reason I don't want to go back and play Red Box Basic, AD&D or even 2nd Edition. Just because that was the game and the way it was played and styled then doesn't mean that I want to play that NOW. I'm not an alignment hater but this extreme would make me RUN from any table that ran a game like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rather than a limit, to me flair should be an addition.

For example if I wanted my settings barbarians to be spiritual and ritualistic I would potentially give them access to something like the anger phantom from the spiritualist.

Paladins train harder than all others and for longer. As such they get full hp every level.

Martial arts are a closely guarded secret so monks get to target flat footed a.c. for the first 2 rounds against an opponent the first time they fight them.

There are advanced thieves guild's so the rogue class gains the ability to acquire any small item from the gold below a certain value so lo g as they can make contact with the guild.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On phone so having to split posts.

Cavaliers from different areas have stables specialised in specific mounts. As such different orders get access to/can only take certain thematically appropriate mounts.

Fighters have seen more conflict than most would dream of. They gain a bonus on intimidate. And diehard for free.

Druids are no strangers to the horrors or beauty of the wild and as such know that sometimes fighting is what is needed. They gain a small rage feature.
Alternatively druids are revered as wise and cool headed, they gain a bonus on diplomacy and gain zone of truth as an ability once per day.

Wizards are outcasts from society. They gain bonus spells known and may apply 1 free metamagic each day as they are more dedicated to their craft.

Sorcerers are not understood as different than wizards and are outcasts as well. They gain an ability to once per day cast a spell 2 levels higher than they normally could, from a specific school. The spell type determined randomly, but from the type they were trying g to cast. So offensive or buffing etc.

To me that is what flair should be


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wish we played with Ric Flair, but you gotta book him months in advance, and then the deposit is a killer.

Shakes fist at his neighbor Doug who booked Flair for Battleship The same weekend we tried booking him.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We need to talk about your flair.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Flair takes practice my good sir unless your naturally gifted or have this hat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays! ^-^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
In character Vidmaster7 wrote:
Flair takes practice my good sir unless your naturally gifted or have this hat.

*casts magic missile at the fancy hat*

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer flair to be the realm of prestige classes. If a GM I knew and respected brought this before me i'd give it a go. I wouldn't join a group i'm unfamiliar with though. As GM, I have banned a few things I didn't like thematically, but I have not done anything like this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Somebody say flair???


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Somebody say flair???

Do you know what happens to flair that gets hit by popcorn?

The same thing that happens to everything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno, lens flair is more Michael Bay's thing. I'm more about the tragically unnecessary but galvanizing deaths.

And ripping off Cowboy Star.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Popcorn Storm wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Somebody say flair???

Do you know what happens to flair that gets hit by popcorn?

The same thing that happens to everything else.

Bouncing on a young Patrick Dempsey.

Ha! Puny popcorn!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
I think alignment is mostly crap and alignment restrictions are total crap, so no I wouldn't like to play in a campaign like this.

Seconded. This isn't so much 'flair' as using rules to enforce stereotypes. Basically, you're telling your players how to play their character. That's a big ol' pile of minotaur crap right there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:


EDIT: Incidentally, your proposal is not a new idea. Back in 2nd ed. rangers had to be good aligned. Rogues couldn't be lawful. There were all kinds of alignment restrictions related to class.

It was a terrible idea then and it's a terrible idea now.

A class is just a set of skills and abilities. It's not a concept, and it certainly isn't a personality.

I've dealt with GMs who did stuff like this. I recall one who said I couldn't share spells with another party wizards because the book said 'wizards guard their spells jealously' or some nonsense like that. I walked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fun Constable wrote:
We need to talk about your flair.

Exactly where I wanted to go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

A class is just a set of skills and abilities. It's not a concept, and it certainly isn't a personality.

Yeah, definitely no concept at all with those clerics, druids, oracles, (anti)paladins, cavaliers, inquisitors, warpriests, or monks.

Just big ole amorphous blobs of numbers those are...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I don't have it in for the alignment system as badly as necromental and Zhayne, I do agree that a class is mostly a set of skills and abilities. Tarik expresses my feeling about divinely-based classes very well.

One of my favorite things is reflavoring class mechanics. Your (the OP's) proposals would be limiting player choice and options on the fluff side where I think they should be given the greatest freedom.

I would however play in the campaign if assured there were reasonable setting-based factors forcing the restrictions, and, if convinced the campaign would be awesome in advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

A class is just a set of skills and abilities. It's not a concept, and it certainly isn't a personality.

Yeah, definitely no concept at all with those clerics, druids, oracles, (anti)paladins, cavaliers, inquisitors, warpriests, or monks.

Just big ole amorphous blobs of numbers those are...

Paizo made a concept, but certainly nothing makes you stick to it.

Quote:
While I don't have it in for the alignment system as badly as necromental

I don't have it badly, but I view it as descriptive rather than prescriptive. But anyone who forces additional restrictions on what alignment certain classes should be will (in my experience) severely restrict what my actions should be also.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Always


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do want to express myself, okay. And I don't need 37 classes with flair to do it.

Sorry for the joke. I appreciate turning around some of the long-held traditions to give a campaign setting a twist, but I don't think that rigid alignment restrictions is the way to do it. I would dig these new conventions if they were cultural, social, political, religious etc. in nature - but not game mechanic alignment requirements.

In Dave Arneson's 3.4 Blackmoor campaign setting book, he gave sorcerers the Disguise skill for free because their kind had been outlawed by wizards and so they had to hide their "dangerous" nature lest they be hunted down by the authorities. A little harsh, I know, but instead of being a required characteristic for the character, it was a characteristic of the world that the character lived in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


A class is just a set of skills and abilities. It's not a concept, and it certainly isn't a personality.

Yeah, definitely no concept at all with those clerics, druids, oracles, (anti)paladins, cavaliers, inquisitors, warpriests, or monks.

Just big ole amorphous blobs of numbers those are...

Paizo made a concept, but certainly nothing makes you stick to it.

No force? Pretty sure those codes of conduct/fall conditions/lack of additional levels upon leaving alignment are pretty stern deterants against going against that flavor.

Sure you can have a GM who throws that stuff out the window but by that logic I can have a GM who declares that PF's core mechanic is now a series of coin flips rather than d20 and is basically a useless point. Paizo didn't make a GURPS type fantasy simulator where you have Class Chassis A-Z. They made a system where a good chunk of classes have some implicit meaning on how you act/grew up/whatever (and conversely have a larger chunk of classes that are easy peasy to refluff to basically anything loosely related)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is this what you're looking for?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
necromental wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


A class is just a set of skills and abilities. It's not a concept, and it certainly isn't a personality.

Yeah, definitely no concept at all with those clerics, druids, oracles, (anti)paladins, cavaliers, inquisitors, warpriests, or monks.

Just big ole amorphous blobs of numbers those are...

Paizo made a concept, but certainly nothing makes you stick to it.

No force? Pretty sure those codes of conduct/fall conditions/lack of additional levels upon leaving alignment are pretty stern deterants against going against that flavor.

Sure you can have a GM who throws that stuff out the window but by that logic I can have a GM who declares that PF's core mechanic is now a series of coin flips rather than d20 and is basically a useless point. Paizo didn't make a GURPS type fantasy simulator where you have Class Chassis A-Z. They made a system where a good chunk of classes have some implicit meaning on how you act/grew up/whatever (and conversely have a larger chunk of classes that are easy peasy to refluff to basically anything loosely related)

With the possible exception of (anti)paladin (whose entire mechanics are based around alignment stuff), none of the alignment restricted classes gain any noticeable power up if you remove those restrictions. Paizo itself proved it with removing it from bard, and later not giving any to bloodrager. Yes, classes have implicit meaning if you read the description they have. If you only read the mechanics, you can pretty much make anything you want within the confines of said mechanics (of course, you could change the mechanics too if you want, but it's not relevant to the discussion).

I mean nobody is saying you cannot play with Paizo description of classes, but you do understand that some of us just take mechanics and come up with a concept that suits us better for our character?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
With the possible exception of (anti)paladin (whose entire mechanics are based around alignment stuff), none of the alignment restricted classes gain any noticeable power up if you remove those restrictions.

I think the alignment requirements of monks and barbarians (going back to pre-PF) were intentionally done to avoid the possibility of mixing rage and flurry of blows, not just for flavor reasons. Though I can't say for sure if it neccessary now, given that charcater classes in general are more powerful now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
I think the alignment requirements of monks and barbarians (going back to pre-PF) were intentionally done to avoid the possibility of mixing rage and flurry of blows, not just for flavor reasons. Though I can't say for sure if it neccessary now, given that charcater classes in general are more powerful now.

Not to mention the Martial Artist monk archetype that did away with the alignment restrictions. And yet somehow the world managed to NOT get punched into smithereens... will wonders never cease?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
necromental wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


A class is just a set of skills and abilities. It's not a concept, and it certainly isn't a personality.

Yeah, definitely no concept at all with those clerics, druids, oracles, (anti)paladins, cavaliers, inquisitors, warpriests, or monks.

Just big ole amorphous blobs of numbers those are...

Paizo made a concept, but certainly nothing makes you stick to it.

No force? Pretty sure those codes of conduct/fall conditions/lack of additional levels upon leaving alignment are pretty stern deterants against going against that flavor.

Sure you can have a GM who throws that stuff out the window but by that logic I can have a GM who declares that PF's core mechanic is now a series of coin flips rather than d20 and is basically a useless point. Paizo didn't make a GURPS type fantasy simulator where you have Class Chassis A-Z. They made a system where a good chunk of classes have some implicit meaning on how you act/grew up/whatever (and conversely have a larger chunk of classes that are easy peasy to refluff to basically anything loosely related)

With the possible exception of (anti)paladin (whose entire mechanics are based around alignment stuff), none of the alignment restricted classes gain any noticeable power up if you remove those restrictions. Paizo itself proved it with removing it from bard, and later not giving any to bloodrager. Yes, classes have implicit meaning if you read the description they have. If you only read the mechanics, you can pretty much make anything you want within the confines of said mechanics (of course, you could change the mechanics too if you want, but it's not relevant to the discussion).

I mean nobody is saying you cannot play with Paizo description of classes, but you do understand that some of us just take mechanics and come up with a concept that suits us better for our character?

I never said the restrictions were balance based. As you said, you could throw most of them out the window and barely notice the difference by and large. But the general intention behind them is that some classes do pack more flavor than others and have role play implications beyond just being a sack of numbers with a table or two.

I have nothing against people throwing out class flavor really (your game, you do you), I just find it baffling how they claim that all classes were meant to just be Generic Chassis A-Z without an iota of flavor behind them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


No force? Pretty sure those codes of conduct/fall conditions/lack of additional levels upon leaving alignment are pretty stern deterants against going against that flavor.

They're stupid, and thus, I throw them out. I think it was a colossal mistake for Paizo (and WotC, and TSR) to put those in as hard-coded rules instead of simply suggestions.

I suppose perhaps it depends on how you define 'concept'. For example, for your concept of a wizard, is it ...
1. A formally schooled, highly educated person with an almost formulaic, scientific approach to magic who was someone's apprentice, or
2. A guy who casts spells and needs a book to do it.

Would you think that, for a 1st level wizard, an acceptable backstory would involve simply scavenging bits of spellbooks and scrolls and such by looting the bodies left scattering a battlefield, and being completely self-taught in the ways of magic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think your basic concept of codes for characters to add another dimension to them isn't necessarily a bad one.

I think you tying it to classes, and thus making every member of a class have to have pretty much the same moral outlook is a bad idea.

If you really want this type of code for your game, I'd add it in as an optional drawback (meaning you take one you get another trait, or even two traits if the code is espcially onerous.)

So you would have something like:

Code of the Wild Wanderer: Wild Wanderers are paragons of the nomadic lifestyle and chosen of the ancestral spirits, who grant them unique boons. The ability to channel the spirits’ wrath is foremost among these boons, and requires the utmost focus and respect for the spirits’ wisdom and will. As such, a Wild Wanderer must be of Lawful alignment, and must obey the code of the ancestral spirits: Never settle for the ‘civilized’ life, never respect a ‘civilized’ law, and protect always the ancestral tradition. If he ever violates this code or ceases to be Lawful, a Wild Wanderer loses access to all class features. If his trespass was unintentional or coerced, a sacrifice of rare animals and herbs equaling 500 gp in value and a return to all requirements is sufficient to return his class features.

And a Barbarian could take that code, but so could a sorcerer or a ranger or even a wizard.

That being said, I would think would thing you would still have to better define the particulars. For example, I personally don't know what "never respecting 'civilized' law" would entail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:
I think your basic concept of codes for characters to add another dimension to them isn't necessarily a bad one.

Except that it doesn't add another dimension to them. It renders them one-dimensional.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
I think your basic concept of codes for characters to add another dimension to them isn't necessarily a bad one.
Except that it doesn't add another dimension to them. It renders them one-dimensional.

Meh. Not necessarily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like "externally imposed requirements on player characters" are not necessarily bad (if people know what they're getting into) but "alignment or else" is a bad way to go about it.

We've done a thing where everybody makes two halves of a character, divide into "backstory, alignment, personality, and traits" with "stats, class, feats, spells" etc. then randomized it where you picked a half of a character from each of two piles and then played it. It's not a thing to do in a 6 month campaign, but it's fun for a few sessions.

You get fun things like "the Wizard who is fascinated with swords despite being unable to use them well" and "the Barbarian who is a seeker of tranquility and loves animals."

But these sorts of things should be more like improv prompts than "extra rules."


quibblemuch wrote:
EDIT: Incidentally, your proposal is not a new idea. Back in 2nd ed. rangers had to be good aligned. Rogues couldn't be lawful. There were all kinds of alignment restrictions related to class.

IIRC, thieves can be anything but LG. But yeah you're right, there's nothing new under the sun. In fact this little project was inspired by Gygax's and Arneson's similarly quirky setting-based requirements for various classes.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, you really hucked that alignment grenade, buddy.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
quibblemuch wrote:

More helpfully:

One of the reasons people play RPGs (or any game) is to enjoy a sense of agency and choice. Your proposal diminishes that by eliminating options and mandating actions.

Try a thought experiment: Imagine a party of four players, where everyone happened to pick the alignments you ordain for their character classes (without knowing about your new proposed system). They RP those alignments perfectly.

Now imagine the same four players, showing up before a new campaign. They have created their characters. They are told they will each be playing alignment X. If they deviate from those alignments, their ability to play the game will be curtailed.

Which of the two scenarios do you imagine will more likely lead to an evening of friends hanging out and having a great time?

I have to say that my main problem with your second example would be that I got the alignment restriction info only AFTER I had already built my character. I would expect to be informed about such restrictions before character creation so that I can make an informed decision about what I want to play.

Apart from that, I would probably have no problems playing in such a campaign. I don't think that eliminating options is necessarily a bad thing, and I also wouldn't feel that those alignment restrictions mandate my acitions any more as the existing alignment restrictions for some of the classes do (and which I'm totally fine with). In general, while I think that a system profits from being mostly restriction-free, a setting doesn't need to adhere to this, as long as the restrictions make sense within the setting.

For my own homebrew, I'm thinking about doing something similar, only that I wouldn't use alignment as the restricting factor but that I would try to marry race, culture and mechanics (think Samurai with it's distinct cultural flavor). Maybe all Elven warriors are mechanically rangers. Or think campaign-flavored PrCs (Aldori sword-lord comes to mind) or even (racial) archetypes, something like that.

Though I also don't plan to make those restrictions mandatory. But if your character is a dwarf and you still want to play a ranger, you would´need to have a good explanation for this deviation from the norm. Because he couldn't have learned that in a traditional dwarven society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like I've gotten distracted with the alignment issues.

Question to OP: What problem are you trying to solve?

If you could be clearer about what you mean by "a bit of flair" we might be able to better respond to your ideas. At the moment every class has somewhere around 2.2 X 10^gagillion archetypes (someone check my math on that). These offer players options ranging from flashy to mundane to create their characters with.

Is limiting those options a way of adding something? And if so, what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
I think your basic concept of codes for characters to add another dimension to them isn't necessarily a bad one.
Except that it doesn't add another dimension to them. It renders them one-dimensional.

I understand that you hate alignment. Heck, anyone that follows these boards at all understands that perfectly well. I'm not really sure why you continue to post on this sort of discussion to be frank with you.

Even with that though, I think you are very wrong here, one can have a code without it really having much to do with the alignment system, indeed many game systems that don't have the classic D&D alignment have codes of conduct and similar restrictions as one form of disadvantage designed to flesh out characters.

Beyond that in real life, and literature and cinema and in gaming having a code of conduct that a person or character lives by certainly doesn't make them one dimensional. While it can be done well or poorly, in most cases it makes them more interesting, not less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Justus wrote:


Even with that though, I think you are very wrong here, one can have a code without it really having much to do with the alignment system,

That's true.

IF it's a code that an individual character lives by because he chooses to, not because 'you are class X therefore your personality is Y'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't need rules for personal codes of conduct, batman doesn't have divine hammer fall down on his head if he were to ever murder someone. Because breaking that code doesn't have any real backfires(inherently, the action itself may have consequences) is what makes it interesting that they still cling onto that moral structure despite it being a bad idea in certain situations.

Scrap alingment and scrap all codes from the rules. You are perfectly capable of playing characters with any of said codes still, now people not stuck in Gygax's box are not hamstringed and perhaps the game might actually evolve past saturday cartoon morality.

Regarding the OP, you are using the word flair wrong. I would personally not even listen to end of a pitch to that sort of campaing before going. "Not interested." I do not see any real value being added by proposed setting rules, but if you want to continue down that path, I seriously suggest rewriting most of them given that the restrictions are not even close to being balanced against eachother.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Galstaff, Sorcerer of Light wrote:
In character Vidmaster7 wrote:
Flair takes practice my good sir unless your naturally gifted or have this hat.
*casts magic missile at the fancy hat*

FYI the hat has spell turning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
In character Vidmaster7 wrote:
Galstaff, Sorcerer of Light wrote:
In character Vidmaster7 wrote:
Flair takes practice my good sir unless your naturally gifted or have this hat.
*casts magic missile at the fancy hat*
FYI the hat has spell turning.

WHERE'S THE MOUNTAIN DEW?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You want dew?

Mail me check, I send dew next week!


quibblemuch wrote:

I feel like I've gotten distracted with the alignment issues.

Question to OP: What problem are you trying to solve?

If you could be clearer about what you mean by "a bit of flair" we might be able to better respond to your ideas. At the moment every class has somewhere around 2.2 X 10^gagillion archetypes (someone check my math on that). These offer players options ranging from flashy to mundane to create their characters with.

Is limiting those options a way of adding something? And if so, what?

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.

Or to be poetic about it, it's like the paladin -- and to a lesser extent many other classes -- come from The Universe of Campaign Quirks. While some classes -- the poster-boy example being the figher -- come from The Universe of Generic Fantasy. So I took a trip to The Universe of Campaign Quirks, and came back with a consistently quirky bunch of ideas!

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
quibblemuch wrote:
Is limiting those options a way of adding something? And if so, what?

From my perspective, if I'm working on a homebrew, I'm generally not interested in kitchen-sink settings, where players can chose any option they might find in an official product. I'm not even that interested in it when playing official adventures and setting, and it irks me everytime when I announce a game in, let's say, Cheliax, and half of the players come with characters from all over the world (except Cheliax). And when I decide to run another AP, I might make very clear, that your character better be inspired by the options in the Player's Guide, if you want to take part in it, because I'm not at all interested in running a game for characters that are played against the setting expectations.

Back to the homebrew. While creating it, I generally have certain topics in mind I want to highlight in actual game, I want the setting to actually be important to the game, and a way to put the focus on that ideas and on the setting is to limit choices that would deviate from that.

For example, the homebrew I'm working on right now, will, at least at the start concentrate on the human race nearly extincted by a kataclysmic event (think big setting mystery). And that might very well mean that at least for the first game I'm running in this world, players will need to create human characters. If and when they come in contact with other races, this might open the door for other choices, but at the start, it will most probaby mean "human" or "nothing".

There might also be ramifications as far as alignment is concerned, because that is a part of the overarching theme of that homebrew, and that might also lead to some restrictions for the players when choosing certain options. Not sure about that, as we're speaking about the long game here.

No matter what I do, I'll probably have to live with the fact that my homebrew might not be very interesting for a lot of people. Luckily, I only have to find 4 or 5 players to go on this adventure with me, so I'll be probably fine with it nonetheless.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Do You GM or Play with Flair? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.