| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not as bad for the monk or barbarian because they can still have moments of acting against their alignment as long as they don't lose their alignment. The paladin has additional alignment restrictions.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere along the way self discipline/control became identified as 'lawful' characteristics. This idea (fallacy I would say) leads directly to the monk and barbarian alignment restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the flavor of monks is that of individuals who undertake rigorous training to perfect their martial arts skills. I'd imagine it springs from there.one does not need to be lawful to be disciplined in martial arts
Monks aren't just disciplined in martial arts. They also have magical abilities, a few of which are tied to law.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere along the way self discipline/control became identified as 'lawful' characteristics. This idea (fallacy I would say) leads directly to the monk and barbarian alignment restrictions.
This goes all the way back of calling it Lawful instead of Order or the like. Monks aren't Lawful in that they follow the law, but that they're disciplined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the flavor of monks is that of individuals who undertake rigorous training to perfect their martial arts skills. I'd imagine it springs from there.one does not need to be lawful to be disciplined in martial arts
There are many different ways to be "Lawful". The way I tend to play monks is that they have a strict personal code. That doesn't mean they need to respect the laws of whatever land they're in, only follow their own code as thoroughly as possible.
Remember that Monks are more than just martial artists, they're more like ascetics whose discipline has allowed them to unlock supernatural powers.
|
|
If I recall the reason for Barbarians keeping their Alignment restrictions is during the Pathfinder playtest where they revealed that that restriction on Bards was lifted there was an absolute shitstorm that followed. So Paizo was pretty much "nope, not doing that again." And so the poor Barbarians can't be Lawful.
I'm probably misremembering though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the flavor of monks is that of individuals who undertake rigorous training to perfect their martial arts skills. I'd imagine it springs from there.one does not need to be lawful to be disciplined in martial artsThere are many different ways to be "Lawful". The way I tend to play monks is that they have a strict personal code. That doesn't mean they need to respect the laws of whatever land they're in, only follow their own code as thoroughly as possible.
Remember that Monks are more than just martial artists, they're more like ascetics whose discipline has allowed them to unlock supernatural powers.
The two (Evil) deities and their followers I like to think of when it comes to the different things implied by the word Lawful are Asmodeus (laws) and Zon-Kuthon (discipline).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't fall so it a much less polarizing issue. I forget them quite often.
I don't think they make much sense though and think a lot of people wouldn't notice if they were listed, I wouldn't.
If one really wanted to justify it, they could always argue that a monk's abilities require a certain level of inner peace and focus that a non-lawful person can't quite attain, while a barbarian's rage requires a certain level of inner turmoil that a lawful person can't obtain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
none lawful people can't be at peace? sounds like nonesense. And lawful people absolutely can have turmoil, ever read a paladin fall thread xD
Part of the issue is that the law/chaos distinction is really, very muddy and/or subtle. It's not that hard to take a Lawful [Foo] character and imagine them as a Chaotic [Foo] character with very little change, honestly. The distinction generally manifests in play on "why they do the things they do" less so in "what they actually do."
So "complaining" is relatively a lot of effort next to "a subtle shift in your character's values."
Honestly the only time I ever see this come up is when someone wants to multiclass monk and barbarian. Otherwise it doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except there are archetypes that allow a barbarian to "rage" by being dispassionate rather than foaming at the mouth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I recall the reason for Barbarians keeping their Alignment restrictions is during the Pathfinder playtest where they revealed that that restriction on Bards was lifted there was an absolute s%*&storm that followed. So Paizo was pretty much "nope, not doing that again." And so the poor Barbarians can't be Lawful.
I'm probably misremembering though.
Yeah, that tends to be one of the problems that comes with changes. People get very adamant that the thing they like stays how they like it, whether it is an alignment restriction or a rule/feat/item/thingy that works the way they want it to and so on. Changing it inspires rage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not as passionate about this issue as I am about the paladin issue because barbarians and monks are not divinely empowered classes. Not having chaotic monks or lawful barbarians doesn't make Milani or Torag look impotent because gods aren't responsible for granting those classes their powers.
And I've also said how I can see the clear logic behind their respective class abilities being tied to their alignment; a monk requiring such extreme discipline that only a lawful individual could possess vs a barbarian having such uninhibited emotions that a lawful individual couldn't possess them. I don't necessarily agree, but I can at least see a clear logic there where as I don't see anything inherently lawful about a paladin's powers; the paladin flavor is very clearly geared towards good, but I don't necessarily buy them being lawful only, especially in a setting like Pathfinder where the gods of courage and devotion are both CG.
That being said, I'm in no way opposed to those restrictions being altered or done away with. If nothing else there are certainly a couple gods & demigods that prove that rage can certainly be a lawful attribute.
|
chaotic individuals can also have strict personal codes
That doesn't sound like any description of chaotic characters I've ever read.
CRB says: Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote
chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benef it from the potential that its individuals have within them.
So freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that allows for a strict personal code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely believe in individaul liberty and the sovereign right of every sentient being to make decisions for their own life. The decision I have made is to live by a strict personal code.
Sounds chaotic and code following.
I absolutely 100% love the status quo re: alignment of Barbarians and Monks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It must be hard on those Chaotic cavaliers not to be able to follow their order's edicts.
There are degrees to alignments as well. Every CG person is not the same. Every LG person is not the same. It isn't a cookie cutter experience, any more than how someone views politics, religion, or gaming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, personally, I disagree with both restrictions. I think Balance monks are easily as appropriate as Balance druids.
Especially since Pathfinder has subsumed nomads into barbarians, denying the existance of lawful barbarians is just wrong. Barbarian cultures, with exceptions are, at least internally very lawful. Rules and Proscriptions (ya know, taboos and all) cover every facet of the barbarian's life. Now, since a big penalty for breaking the rules is banishment, non-lawful barbarian adventurers will be common as dirt. Further, young barbarians leaving such a lawful society will often go wild, kind of like that stereotyped Amish lad on rumspringa.
CD, while I disagree with Cannen's inner peace theory, your use of the turmoil of the Falling paladin to argue against the inner peace of Lawfulness fails. The Falling paladin is, pretty much by definition, having allignment issues.
I would say inner peace is coming to accept whatever your allignment is in a hard allignment world. Canon disagrees with me though, specifically in the Idylkin race trait that allows them to be Nuetrally Alligned monks. Now, I'm surprised that isn't a more common Adopted trait use.
Source Blood of Angels pg. 21
Requirement(s) Aasimar - Idyllkin
You have always found it easy to maintain inner peace and enlightenment that translate well to the battlefield. You may take levels in monk even while maintaining a neutral or neutral good alignment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
chaotic individuals can also have strict personal codesThat doesn't sound like any description of chaotic characters I've ever read.
CRB says: Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote
chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benef it from the potential that its individuals have within them.So freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that allows for a strict personal code.
And yet the Antipaladin class exists.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'barbarians can't be lawful' thing is the only one that really cheeses me off, since it's kind of racist at heart. 'Savage' folk can't have traditions or honor or strict codes of behavior? Hogwash. And the corollary that city folk are more inherently law-abiding and trustworthy? Yet more hogwash.
I completely ignore that one, and I don't even feel the need to justify it, just like I ignored the 'female characters can't have an 18/00 Strength' nonsense from 1st edition.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'll complain about this again.
The lawful-chaotic alignment axis is even messier and vaguer than the good-evil axis. Depending on the group, "Lawfulness" may be characterized by reliability, honesty, respect for authority, preference for routine, discipline, being organized, or behaving in a rational/logical manner. YMMV on whether a personal code counts as lawful behavior (see: this thread). I've also seen law vs chaos defined as "individualist vs collectivist" or "deontological vs consequentialist."
Given this, it makes no sense to slap alignment restrictions on these classes based on the vague association of discipline with law or emotional behavior with chaos. This ends up one of two ways:
1) Arbitrarily label an anarchist monk as "lawful," and an honourable tribal champion who respects his elders as "chaotic" because that's what the class says the label should be, even if you would normally describe such characters as being a different alignment.
2) Arbitrarily disallow anarchist monks and honourable barbarians, because those traits don't fit the alignment restrictions, despite the fact that those traits have nothing to do with the reasons for the alignment restrictions.
That doesn't annoy me much because I don't think of the barbarian class as really representing "savage folk" so much as someone who fights as much if not more off of emotion, fury, and instinct rather than trained skill. I've seen more than one canon elven ranger type character who has a level or two in barbarian despite them being sleek elven warriors who are members of their respective society's nobility.
But yeah, that can be seen as problematic, especially given the etymology of the word "barbarian" and how it was initially a dismissive slur used by the greeks to apply to any culture that they considered beneath theirs(even ones that, objectively, were more advanced).
Edit: responding to Set, there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo released a class that was basically "Barbarian, but with magic" and it doesn't have any alignment restrictions.
Just saying.
Also, Infernal Sorcerers don't have to be evil despite their power literally coming from the Nine Hells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes they did.
I figured the logic behind that was that a bloodrager's rage wasn't really a choice on the bloodrager's part, it's a supernatural effect that's the result of a birth condition and exists independent of their personality.
Still, not only can you have a lawful 'better barbarian', but you can have a lawful good better barbarian with the abyssal bloodline, so their powers are a direct result of inherited exposure to the actual plane of chaotic evil.
I feel the story justifications for non-lawful barbarians falls flat in the face of that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Player Companion Champions of Balance has this to say on Chaotic codes of conductchaotic individuals can also have strict personal codesThat doesn't sound like any description of chaotic characters I've ever read.
CRB says: Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote
chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benef it from the potential that its individuals have within them.So freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that allows for a strict personal code.
A code of personal honior is entirely compatible with a chaotic alignment, provided this code is simple, serves to limit the constraints on yourself (and possibly others), and springs from a fierce internal convictions. Your sense of obligation is personal, not imposed by rules and structure; indeed, determinedly self-sufficient would often feel their obligations a more keenly than others aground them.
. Not sure if this supports strict personal codes (really depends on what you consider strict) but it seemed relevant to the discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that antipaladins are required to be CE and also have strict codes of conduct that they have to follow supports the idea. Especially when those codes of conduct are ones imposed by deities they worship.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that antipaladins are required to be CE and also have strict codes of conduct that they have to follow supports the idea. Especially when those codes of conduct are ones imposed by deities they worship.
The Anti-paladin's code is strict? That's laughable.
The only thing strict in it is to be CE and don't be altruistically good.
Otherwise do whatever you want whenever you want as long as it furthers your own goals.
So strict.
It's about as strict as I would expect from a Chaotic character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet the Antipaladin class exists.
And I wouldn't call the antipaladin code a strict personal code. It's basically you should sow discord and tyranny whenever you can, unless, you know, that gets in the way of what you want to do. If it does, do whatever you feel like. But under no circumstances shall you do anything good. I mean actions everyone would consider to be good are fine, you just can't do them because you are good.
Not saying that Chaotic characters can't have a code, just that a strict code is a bit of a stretch. And that they would be more likely to disobey a strict code if they had one.
EDIT - Didn't mean to pile on there, but ninja'd by about a minute.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that antipaladins are required to be CE and also have strict codes of conduct that they have to follow supports the idea. Especially when those codes of conduct are ones imposed by deities they worship.The Anti-paladin's code is strict? That's laughable.
Antipaladins of Rovagug will fall if they target ugly things before they target beautiful things.
If an Antipaladin of Lamashtu attempts to hide their deformities, they will fall.
If anyone knows that an Antipaladin of Norgober has taken an action in some way, they fall.
All stuff from Antipaladin codes of conduct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
saw in the paladin thread that there was no forum complaining about barbarian or monk alignment restrictions, even though i doubt that i decided to make one here.
why can barbarians not be lawful and why are monks only lawful it makes no sense and just seems to be another thing stapled to the game based on this is how things were in the beginning which also made little to no sense.
Bolding mine
Yeah, that's patently untrue (not you, the claim that you're rightly doubting). I should know; I disagree with the Paladin, the Barbarian, the Druid, and other unfairly restricted classes out of the principle of the thing. I've raised the issue of how nonsensical the Monk restrictions are since the Beta, because I happen to like playing Monk characters above all others and I can't do that in this game without a constant uphill battle that I shouldn't have to be waging.
If you can't get a monk to lie, cheat, and steal without losing alignment, then you are not creative enough.
Lawful tends to be about rules, laws, codes. But whose codes? What about the law of jungle? What of the laws of the concrete jungle? Does law have to be solely the rules of the king?
No. Cheating at a card game might be a common way to break 'rules'.... but what if you step into a card game between master cheats? In such a game, every player will cheat, adn you are simply a fool if you play honest. But really.... if everyone cheats, and expects cheating from the other players.... that is just an unspoken rule. The game turns away from the common game of chance, adn turns into a game of skill- one where you try to use your best techniques and spot the techniques of opponents. It is practically a duel with 'laws' of its own.
So... how to be an 'unlawful' lawful monk? Simple- just establish a set of rules, and stick to them. That is it. You stick to your adopted code (which might be the code of your sect), and stick to it. If you wish to understand how this works, look at the River Freedoms, the rules established by the highly chaotic lands of the River Kingdoms. This set of rules focuses on self management and minimal interference in another's freedoms (other than shanking, of course). In this code, you are entitled purely to the objects you can keep a hold of.... or take from the hold of others (hey- they didn't guard their stuff well enough).
I also like to play with karma, in the sense that each person has a 'role' that is decided by their condition and acts. Thus, the 'role' of a thief is to get caught (and thus face their punishment), to escape (and face living on the run, and paying the price in a continuous struggle against the law), or to hide their crime (and thus always worry that someone will notice them- a price paid in peace of mind). In this view, the monk would have no right to complain for paying the 'price' of the path she chose- although she can continue to seek a path with a new price. And, if she is forced to face off against a dear friend (a hero, a law enforcer, etc.) trying to stop her crime, she will not hold hatred against her opponent, since they are simply fulfilling the obligations of their 'roles'.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're willing to game the alignment system to such a degree that you can do whatever as whatever alignment why bother restricting classes? Just let them be any alignment and people won't have to game it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm Concept: Mongolian horse lord LN barbarian (guess I could go ranger). I could run with that.. ride with that... I think its just easier to ignore lawful and chaotic then it is to ignore good and evil. Plus a lot of concepts for Those two tend to fit into their alignment perspective.
I couldn't even think of a chaotic monk to play.
Somewhere along the way self discipline/control became identified as 'lawful' characteristics. This idea (fallacy I would say) leads directly to the monk and barbarian alignment restrictions.
Disagree. The fallacy is that lawful has anything to do with laws.
In the context of D&D alignments, Lawful means Order. Which makes more sense when set against Chaos.
Self discipline and control both seem to be very ordered ideas to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If one were to go 'strictly' Order/Lawful, wouldn't there be an Order Event Horizon where one would eventually reach a 'zen-like' understanding of Order, and thus become capable of any disorderly conduct within the bounds of Orderly conduct?
Likewise, anyone who has ever worked in a bureaucracy has had their times of Rage, so why should hapless clerks not be allowed to use their frustration in a more productive fashion, rather than a counter-productive one?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the notion of non-lawful 'drunken master' monks, or lawful berserkers who master their rage with an iron will, driving themselves into an 'in the moment' state of pure focus, 'in the zone,' in modern terms, and able to ignore pain and transcend the normal limits of their body. Nothing 'chaotic' about it. Just really, really intense.
Same for bards. Lawful court herald bards or holy choristers of lawful churches are go, for me. If any 'skillmonkey' class would be 'non lawful' by nature it would be those sneaky Rogues, and yet they can be totally licensed locksmiths and not at all sticky-fingered opportunists who think of rules as 'just a suggestion.'
I'm okay with Druids requiring an element of neutrality (or not. It doesn't particularly bother me if it's removed, since rangers (and hunters?) can use druid spells without being neutral-ish).
Really, clerics and 'holy warriors' sharing some alignment elements with their gods is about all I really consider relevant to the game.
Most other class-based alignment stuff is just fluff, and not particularly sacred, to me. (Although I'd still require Prestige Classes involving demon, devil or daemon-worship, like the Souleater, Demonaic, or Diabolist to be evil, 'cause that's their whole schtick).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, the current law and chaos axis is worthless and should be taken out back and shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The good vs evil axis at least makes sense most of the time. If you do something selfish that hurts others, it's evil. If you do something selfless that helps others, it's good. Sure, there's a middle ground with shades of grey, but at least we have two good starting points. Try defining a chaotic action that couldn't also be lawful or vice versa.