lawful barbarians and non lawful monks


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference is akin Chernobyl and dumping your industrial waste into water-supply. The other might be more harmful than the other, but both are a problem, both of which are avoidable.

And objective morality does not make sense. It may on occasion cross paths with reason but that is purely by chance, not because it itself has any.

We might as well have alignments of Green, Purple, Orange and Pink.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Java Man wrote:
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.

Wizards spend their lives devoted to the difficult study of Arcane Magic. Magi do that, and have the discipline and fortitude to match it with study of arms. Fighters can train so hard with weapons that he can make a weapon magical in his hands and so hard with armor to swim and do acrobatics in full plate unhindered. Cavalier and Samurai follow strict Codes of Conduct, and may swear fealty to a Lord or a larger knightly organization. The Unchained Rogue has trained his skills to be able to use them in ways no one else can.

None of them has to be lawful. Meanwhile, the Monk has a whole archetype dedicated to deriving power from getting hammered--a trait most associated in Golarion with one of the setting's most prominent Chaotic Gods, I might add.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
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.

I feel like the point of the alignment system is less to compel certain actions from players, and more to get them to think about how their characters justify their actions based on what they believe.

Given how easy it is to take any particular pop culture character and see them as more or less any alignment you can name (Batman is a popular example) I don't see why you can't do the same with PF characters. Which is to say that the LG and CG character might do all the same things, but if pressed their reasons for doing what they do will be different. It should never be "that's not a lawful act" it should be "explain to me how your character views that as a lawful act" (and then you accept literally any answer that makes sense since any answer fulfills the purpose of alignment.)

I just read these restrictions as "take your character concept and view it through the lawful/chaotic lens" which is easy enough to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wolfram,

On your interpretation of "Vikings".
First, you do know that the Vikingr, were people in an occupation taken by the increasingly desperate Norsemen, who, as their lands were being taken by the ice, went aViking (raiding) to make ends meet. Actually most Norseman went abroad as traders, and often as settlers.

If you read the surviving stories, most berserkers are the bad guys, who are eventually killed by the good guys. Some are actually good guys, but flawed, and their violence generally leads to their tragic, violent endings.

I have no interest in telling you what your character should do.
I have less interest in adopting your nihilistic philosophy/playstyle.
Your portrayal of Norse culture was wrong though, Hollywood, not History.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
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.

I feel like the point of the alignment system is less to compel certain actions from players, and more to get them to think about how their characters justify their actions based on what they believe.

Well in that regard it fails horribly in my experience. All I have ever seen it do is confuse new players, I have often seen people feel constrained by the alignment and I have occasionally seen it cause player vs DM tension.

I don't see how someone could look at this reductionist inadequate anti verisimilitude 4 corner alinngment system and this, oh yes, this will free up people's creativity.

The only time I have ever seen that is when people have made threads on these forums basically to make characters that subvert and undermines the system. Not because it is a mind broadening font of inspiration.

It may have been intneded to liberate people's creativity and get them to think but I don't think it works.


CD,

Il like a lot of your ideas, but on this last post, not so much.
Have you considered that your new players confusion on alignments might be as much due to your portrayal of the material as it is to do with the material itself?

There are good points on both sides of this discussion ... argument ... war of preferences, but the interesting bits are starting to get choked out.


Revan wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Java Man wrote:
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.

Wizards spend their lives devoted to the difficult study of Arcane Magic. Magi do that, and have the discipline and fortitude to match it with study of arms. Fighters can train so hard with weapons that he can make a weapon magical in his hands and so hard with armor to swim and do acrobatics in full plate unhindered. Cavalier and Samurai follow strict Codes of Conduct, and may swear fealty to a Lord or a larger knightly organization. The Unchained Rogue has trained his skills to be able to use them in ways no one else can.

None of them has to be lawful. Meanwhile, the Monk has a whole archetype dedicated to deriving power from getting hammered--a trait most associated in Golarion with one of the setting's most prominent Chaotic Gods, I might add.

To me that's only an argument for that particular archetype being chaotic (and actually it should be) but wasn't changed for reasons we don't know. Perhaps no one cared enough when it was being written.

Honestly, if I had the chance I would probably collapse the alignment spectrum into Lawful-Good, Neutral, Chaotic-Evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The difficulty I have with these discussions is that I find no fault in the logic of any of the sides. The core of the disagreements are rooted in differing definitons of the law/chaos axis. Whether we are discussing the RAW definitions or common interpretations the conversation will not reach anywhere tidy if there are four differing base definitions in play. All of the posts here are internally correct, if the base definition they use is accepted, or are flat wrong if their base definition is not taken as valid.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about being a monk requires lawful? Is it the increased Unarmed damage? Brawlers get that without being lawful. Is it the KI pool? Ninjas get that without being lawful. (And they get it more quickly too.) AC bonus? Oracles, Warpriests, and others get that without being lawful.

And what's more damning is that unlike paladins and barbarians, a monk that becomes non lawful retains all class abilities, they just can't take more monk levels. There is no level of mental discipline needed by being lawful to use stunning fist or flurry of blows, otherwise ex-monks would lose access to them.

There is no game balance reason for monks to be lawful, and there is no compelling story reason for them to be so when other classes can use those abilities without being lawful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

CD,

Il like a lot of your ideas, but on this last post, not so much.
Have you considered that your new players confusion on alignments might be as much due to your portrayal of the material as it is to do with the material itself?

There are good points on both sides of this discussion ... argument ... war of preferences, but the interesting bits are starting to get choked out.

Given that I just show them the paizo published stuff for it if they ask, no I don't.


CD,
Do you use this approach to answer questions on traits, feats, combat actions, magic ....?


Nope.


Daw wrote:

Wolfram,

On your interpretation of "Vikings".
First, you do know that the Vikingr, were people in an occupation taken by the increasingly desperate Norsemen, who, as their lands were being taken by the ice, went aViking (raiding) to make ends meet. Actually most Norseman went abroad as traders, and often as settlers.

If you read the surviving stories, most berserkers are the bad guys, who are eventually killed by the good guys. Some are actually good guys, but flawed, and their violence generally leads to their tragic, violent endings.

I have no interest in telling you what your character should do.
I have less interest in adopting your nihilistic philosophy/playstyle.
Your portrayal of Norse culture was wrong though, Hollywood, not History.

I was using viking since it is more well known term. I could have said migration era norse culture, but likely it would not be a term that everyone knows. Granted I should have been clearer. I was referring to the culture that actual viking raiders came from as a whole. And that that is where they drew inspiration from. And yeah I have read plenty of sagas, and I happen to live in north europe so I am quite aware of the history instead of their hollywood counterpart. And I fail to see how I was misrepresenting them, all I called them was lawful culture instead of the savages they are usually portrayed as. That is pretty much the only statement I made regarding them.

And please do drop the holier than thou attitude, especially when you are throwing around baseless accusations.


Sorry about that Wulfram, I guess read your Viking reference entirely opposite from your intent. I don't agree with your premise of the complete worthlessness of alignments, but that is just preference. Agree that alignments do not work for everyone, but have seen that they do work quite well for some. For the strict wargame focus, alignment, and, frankly, most of the thematics are of little or no value, and can actually detract from clever builds, and efficient advancement. Even on more story oriented games, they can be opposed to some story concepts. As always, we are an adaptive species, we can make it work.

Just because your toolbox is geared towards carpentry doesn't mean it is of absolutely no value in fixing your car.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No trouble, came a bit too harsh myself.

I view alignment as worthless because I view the base assumption that it relies on as worthless, objective morality. As far as I see it, to buy into that you have to be delusional. It doubles up on the fault because that objective morality is never defined as anything. It is spelled out as objective fact, but since it is not written down anywhere as a result it is whatever the hell GM thinks it is. I really do not understand how people tolerate such writing from a game company, would anyone accept if combat rules were written in this fashion?

Dark Archive

Honest question: do these debates have any relevance in the grand scheme of the Pathfinder game? I mean, when they released the Tyrant and Insinuator antipaladins, was that as a result of demand from the players, in discussion like these? or do the devs just do what they do based on the artistic direction they want for Golarion?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yanndu wrote:
Honest question: do these debates have any relevance in the grand scheme of the Pathfinder game? I mean, when they released the Tyrant and Insinuator antipaladins, was that as a result of demand from the players, in discussion like these? or do the devs just do what they do based on the artistic direction they want for Golarion?

Various devs have mentioned that financial considerations impact their decisions on what to publish; reason we haven't seen much Dragon Empires stuff is because the initial material they released for it didn't sell particularly well, which in turn has also made them hesitant about posting full on books for the other continents and why we get most of that setting information via snippets like Distant Shores.

I don't know that that translates to vocal demand for something like the Tyrant leading to it's publication. But we don't get the chance to vote with our wallets unless the devs know what we want to vote for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The forums influence, they do not direct.
A good idea, well presented can stick in people's heads until it finds relevance.
Several developers outsource some of the play testing to the forums.
The forums can be an effective crowd source to a wide knowledge pool.

Not every thread provides anything useful, and sometimes it can be a pain sifting the wheat from the chaff, and an unpleasantly presented idea tends to go nowhere, but not sharing your ideas generally guarantees that they go nowhere.

EDIT/ADD
FF said it just as well, I shouldn't just leave posts sitting while I get lunch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once roleplayed a monk in a way like Po from Kung fu Panda a few years ago. It was a LG on paper character behaving more like a CG character. None of our table gave a damn about aligment 'strictness' and everyone had fun. No goblins were hurt in the process (seriously, we fought 0).

Never saw the light, but another of my uncommon ideas was to make a CG barbarian with a lawful behavior (more or less like 'the Hulk'). A peaceful man with simple ideas, but you shouldn't make him angry...

What I am trying to convey (awfully must confess), is that Alignment axis shouldn't be nine colours from LG to CE. More like a wide canvas of tones with 9 basic colours intermixed, creating harmonious tones of fun.

And with that load of... pixie dust said, I'm off to sleep.


I think Barbarians can pretty frequently display lawful actions. Kellid & Shoanti tribes tend to be associated with Barbarians, and looking at them certainly seems m chaotic.

Shoanti defiantly resist Chelaxian integration into their civilization. They are free, and nomadic. This seems chaotic.

Simultaneously however, they have lawful behavior. They strongly value the spirits of the past and their heritage. They strongly revere and obey chiefs and shamans. They have strict tribal hierarchies. Their stubbornness against the Chelaxian sides partially fueled by a dislike of change.

So, most of them probably have lawful and chaotic components. This means they average out to neutral. Some of them are more polarized, lawful shoanti emphasize their great traditions, while chaotic shoanti emphasize their freedom from "civilization"

So, Barbarians aren't totally lawful. They would have to be devoted to discipline or order. Yet they can still believe in lawful elements.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
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).

This is what I mean about arbitrarily labeling characters as an alignment because of their class restrictions. Calling a follower of a highly chaotic philosophy "lawful" strikes me as bizarre. It's also contrary to the way that deities work - following a chaotic deity's rules doesn't make you lawful.

Claxon wrote:

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.

I agree there's an association.

But is self discipline alone sufficient to make a character lawful? Is a character who is very self disciplined but doesn't value any form of social or moral order still lawful?

Conversely, is self discipline necessary to make a character lawful - could you conceive of a character that you would call "lawful" despite a lack of self discipline? If so, should that character be able to be a monk?

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I couldn't even think of a chaotic monk to play.

Then I think I need to introduce you to Zaheer from Legend of Korra.

Zaheer is an anarchist. He believes not just that "true freedom can only be achieved when oppressive governments are torn down" but also "the natural order is disorder." I'm confident that a majority of Pathfinder players would consider him Chaotic.

He's also a master of a highly spiritual martial arts form, and spends a lot of time meditating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I couldn't even think of a chaotic monk to play.

Then I think I need to introduce you to Zaheer from Legend of Korra.

Zaheer is an anarchist. He believes not just that "true freedom can only be achieved when oppressive governments are torn down" but also "the natural order is disorder." I'm confident that a majority of Pathfinder players would consider him Chaotic.

He's also a master of a highly...

^ so much this ^


Lady-J wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
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

That's why the Martial Artist archetype exists, which gives away a lot of the "mystic enlightened" aspect of the monk class in exchange for no alignment restriction.

Edit: basically setting in theme that the lawful requirement is there to attain the quasi-magical enlightened abilities rather than mastery of unarmed combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
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

That's why the Martial Artist archetype exists, which gives away a lot of the "mystic enlightened" aspect of the monk class in exchange for no alignment restriction.

Edit: basically setting in theme that the lawful requirement is there to attain the quasi-magical enlightened abilities rather than mastery of unarmed combat.

Except the lawful requirement has nothing to do with the quasi-magical enlightened abilities.

Proof:
-the fact that you keep 100% of everything you got prior to dropping out of lawful
-the fact that, as long as you keep boosting your Wisdom score, you get to improve your Monk Ki Pool capacity, even without being lawful
-the fact that other classes get Ki and Ki abilities and don't even slightly have to be lawful
-the fact that you may continue to learn quasi-magical enlightened abilities in the form of the various style feats; no, they aren't part of the class, but they do represent the same sort of quasi-magic as the Monk's class abilities and you are attaining these new Monk-reminiscent abilities, no lawful required

I'm reminded of the "very specific level of tired" introduced in DM of the Rings.

https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
lemeres wrote:
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).
This is what I mean about arbitrarily labeling characters as an alignment because of their class restrictions. Calling a follower of a highly chaotic philosophy "lawful" strikes me as bizarre. It's also contrary to the way that deities work - following a chaotic deity's rules doesn't make you lawful.

Yeah, but tons of game mechanics are arbitrary.

At least, during the process of mental gymnastics, I am forced to consider the attitudes an thought processes of my character. Setting this arbitrary limitation lets me find a spring board for developing my character. You tend to flesh things out the best when you are faced with obvious contradictions- how do you deal with those?

But at the same time.... freakin' Torag. Or "What are ya gettin' confused for boy-o. Just cut down the baby goblins and be done wid eit. Can't be havin' dem buggers growin' up to cause trouble again." Lawful good everyone! So you might have a point about 'just putting a label onto a philosophy' there....


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
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

That's why the Martial Artist archetype exists, which gives away a lot of the "mystic enlightened" aspect of the monk class in exchange for no alignment restriction.

Edit: basically setting in theme that the lawful requirement is there to attain the quasi-magical enlightened abilities rather than mastery of unarmed combat.

And yet there's no option for the extremely Chaotic-leaning form of enlightenment spoken of by a number of zen masters. The emphasis on walking one's own guided by their unfettered personal will, without allowing oneself to be entangled by anything (be it family, society or anything or anyone else) speaks to a very Chaotic mindset.

Surely, then, there should be a Chaotic monk variant emphasizing the quest to become free of any attachments and entanglements keeping someone from realizing their unfettered personal will.


Tectorman
While I am in no way saying that I believe monks must be lawful, your proof has a huge hole in it. A no-longer-lawful monk does not lose his hard won enlightenment. He has learned those lessons. The big killer to your proof is that he can no longer advance. He has lost his way. Since a monks abilities are thematically internal, they aren't taken away by jealous gods, because they weren't given by any external force.

Avatar fans
Now, using an Avatar example is easier to poke a hole into, in the Pathfinder milieu.
Avatar is, by definition, a Mythic setting. Zaheer being mythically "above all that" is the most simple and reasonable explanation, in system. (Additionally, do we even know that he has advanced since he became non-lawful.) Zaheer can be supported by both assumptions, whether or not lawful is required, so cannot be used as a proof.

Since this is all defending preferences, you are trying to show your base assumptions are reasonable, not that they are right, Right? Calling things Proof is not really helping anything.


Daw wrote:

Wolfram,

On your interpretation of "Vikings".
First, you do know that the Vikingr, were people in an occupation taken by the increasingly desperate Norsemen, who, as their lands were being taken by the ice, went aViking (raiding) to make ends meet. Actually most Norseman went abroad as traders, and often as settlers.

...Your portrayal of Norse culture was wrong though, Hollywood, not History...

When talking about history, it's always important to remember that, when dealing with the past (or at least the far past) there are few definite answers.

The following are all different answers to why the viking expansion started in the 8th century.

- Retaliation to the encroachment of Christianity. (especially Norway suffered from almost a century of internal division due to the introduction of Christianity.

- the Agricultural base couldn't support the growing population (Again might be true of western Norway, but hasn't been proven elsewhere in Scandinavia -> cause are also in dispute; Cooling weather or Population Explosion.

- Related is the idea of have a surplus of young men that created a youth-bulge, that looked to lands as they couldn't get their hand on any in the homelands. (Why this would created a expansion outwards, instead of into the forested interiors, of some of the homeland, are up for debate)

- The Partial collapse of the old Roman-era trade rutes have also been attribute, to have had an effect on the expansion. The viking where seeking new markets to open up for trade. (This seems a to run a bit counter to "normal", as the vikings tended to follow a raid->settle->trade pattern, especially in the early years of the viking expansion)

Edit: I could properly find more reasons, if I could be assed to get my History books off the shelves, but those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head ^^.

Edit Edit: Oh and Alignment requirements are a outdated (and sometimes lazy) way of gating classes, that one should properly move beyond.


I agree. Alignment is awesome, and serves a vital purpose to help guide new players in the arts of roleplaying.

Our group has even toyed with adding more alignment restrictions, such as requiring Inquisitors to be non-chaotic, Slayers to be non-good, and Gunslingers to be non-breathing piles of dust.


Kjeldorn,

Good points. ^-^ As my Aunt Petunia used to say, "It's Debating Time."

Encroaching Christianity as a cause is not so strong. Olaf's conversion was well into the Viking Age. Most Norse Pagans had no problem adding "the White Christ" into their world view. The antagonism really only occurred when Christianity was well enough established that it could be used in a Power-Play, ostensibly to supplant Paganism rather than co-exist with it, but more towards shifting the balance of power more towards the King than was previously the case. Christianity supported centralization of power more than Paganism did. (Yes, I know Pagan is an innacurate, loaded term, but anything better would be more obscure, equally loaded, and probably confusing to the issue. Norse Polytheism as a term sucks in my 'humble' opinion.)

Your further examples are not in disagreement with my point, and some are actually facets/consequences of it.

As to expanding into the forests. Several things, if the more hospitable, already-cleared valleys were becoming unproductive, the forested lands were unlikely to be an improvement, especially since those forests were generally not growing on even terrain, which was at a premium in that area. You also need to recognize that the forests and their wildlife, in and of themselves, were valuable resources.


Daw wrote:

Kjeldorn,

Good points. ^-^ As my Aunt Petunia used to say, "It's Debating Time."

Encroaching Christianity as a cause is not so strong. Olaf's conversion was well into the Viking Age. Most Norse Pagans had no problem adding "the White Christ" into their world view. The antagonism really only occurred when Christianity was well enough established that it could be used in a Power-Play, ostensibly to supplant Paganism rather than co-exist with it, but more towards shifting the balance of power more towards the King than was previously the case. Christianity supported centralization of power more than Paganism did. (Yes, I know Pagan is an innacurate, loaded term, but anything better would be more obscure, equally loaded, and probably confusing to the issue. Norse Polytheism as a term sucks in my 'humble' opinion.)

Your further examples are not in disagreement with my point, and some are actually facets/consequences of it.

As to expanding into the forests. Several things, if the more hospitable, already-cleared valleys were becoming unproductive, the forested lands were unlikely to be an improvement, especially since those forests were generally not growing on even terrain, which was at a premium in that area. You also need to recognize that the forests and their wildlife, in and of themselves, were valuable resources.

My to cents:

A overall factor isn't likely to be found as the conditions of the individual chieftain or karl in 8th century Scandinavia would have been very different if the lived in Norway (very little arable land to go around), Denmark (intensive farming capable of supporting quite a large population) or Sweden (mixed bag - southern tip = Denmark, mid/northern parts = more like Norway).

I would say it was a host of factors, and here just some of them.
This period begins the centralization that becomes the feudal-state, as such its here you see the creation of powerful dynasties that push out a lot of the chiefs on the periphery as they consolidate their own and their allies holdings in the homelands.
This coupled with the relative weakness of the land to the West and East of Scandinavia, makes them a tempting target for the people who are pressured back home.
The increasing urbanisation and a steady flow of wealth into the more northern part of western Europe, made these more temping targets for raids. A added bonus would be as vikings flooded an area, they could then supplant the local merchants, to take advantage of any lucrative trade in that area.
(These are macro considerations that in someway affect the whole of Scandinavia in this period)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, anyone who says "...but nobody ever complains about other alignment restrictions" in a paladin thread either hasn't spent much time at all on D&D forums, is being willfully ignorant, or is over-generalizing. Chances are if someone objects to the paladin restrictions, he or she also objects to some or all other alignment restrictions.

It's just the paladin gets more press because he's the poster-boy of restrictive classes -- not only is he an entire base class restricted to a single alignment, but he's got the code which means he has to be LG++, and his restrictions have more ardent defenders because (unless I'm mistaken) they go back further in the game's history than other classes do.

Set wrote:
Really, clerics and 'holy warriors' sharing some alignment elements with their gods is about all I really consider relevant to the game.

Same here. My test for restriction validity is "If I reprinted the rules with this restriction omitted*, handed those rules to a new group of players completely ignorant of D&D and D&D-inspired tropes, and watched that group play, would anyone in that group reinvent the omitted restriction without being told about by an outsider?"

*Plus options for other alignments, if appropriate. Like smite good, chaos, and law, and alternate codes for the paladin.

And the 'divine classes must be this close to their deity's alignment' is the only alignment restriction that I can see someone reinventing. So that's the only one I consider arguably valid for a base game.

Melkiador wrote:
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.

Agreed. I can even use the Golden Rule to define (to my own satisfaction at least) the Good-Evil axis -- not so the Law-Chaos axis. Even if I call it the Order-Chaos axis, there are just too many eggs broken up into each of those two baskets. I think I just don't find any of those eggs nearly as compelling as selfishness and altruism, even uncracked.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yeah, anyone who says "...but nobody ever complains about other alignment restrictions" in a paladin thread either hasn't spent much time at all on D&D forums, is being willfully ignorant, or being generous, is over-generalizing. Chances are if someone objects to the paladin restrictions, he or she also objects to some or all other alignment restrictions.

It's just the paladin gets more press because he's the poster-boy of restrictive classes -- not only is he an entire base class restricted to a single alignment, but he's got the code which means he has to be LG++, and his restrictions have more ardent defenders because (unless I'm mistaken) they go back further in the game's history than other classes do.

Barbarians aren't that much younger than paladins (at least i remember a 1st ed Ad+D players guide or something with barbarians in it) I think that the barbarian restriction stems from the idea that throwing yourself into a berserk rage is not a particularly disciplined fighting style and that sort of losing yourself to primal fury is simply too difficult for lawfully minded people to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was because Barbarians were forced to destroy every magic item they came across.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Tectorman

While I am in no way saying that I believe monks must be lawful, your proof has a huge hole in it. A no-longer-lawful monk does not lose his hard won enlightenment. He has learned those lessons. The big killer to your proof is that he can no longer advance. He has lost his way. Since a monks abilities are thematically internal, they aren't taken away by jealous gods, because they weren't given by any external force.

I'm under the impression that you're playing Devil's Advocate. If true, then I appreciate what you're saying. Most especially, I appreciate the bolded. That you're not operating on the dismissiveness and condescension inherent to the One-True-Wayism of the alignment restrictions. It's much easier to talk to someone when they're not starting the conversation off with "Hello, screw you!"

And while there is sarcasm, it is not directed towards you, Daw, but rather to the selfish among us that somehow get flummoxed that people don't like being oppressed or dismissed, not even in the context of something like a Saturday afternoon game.

That said, I already addressed what you brought up twice. The Ninja, Rogue, and Oracle (and probably others that don't immediately come to mind) can also gain Ki and Ki abilities without being lawful. Being lawful cannot be a required component to attaining new enlightenment-esque quasi-magical abilities because we can witness said attainment happen anyway. Also, I mentioned the various style feats. A Monk can stop being lawful and keep what he's already learned while not being able to gain new Monk levels. Allegedly, this represents a newfound incapacity to achieve further enlightenment, represented by not gaining new quasi-magical abilities.

Bupkiss. Just look at what Ultimate Combat gave us. Djinni Style, Dragon Style, Marid Style, etc. Thematically, acquiring those abilities is you doing exactly what you were doing as a Monk, gaining pseudo-magical abilities tied to martial arts in the pursuit of enlightenment and physical perfection. I mean, what exactly is the thematic difference between learning a new qinggong ability (such as, say, Scorching Ray) and learning the Efreeti Touch feat? The only difference is that you don't have to lawful to continue on the path of enlightenment represented by those style feats. That's a game mechanism difference, though, not a thematic difference. One set of abilities is represented through the vehicle of a class and its various class features; the other lies in the mechanical package of feats.

That strikes me as a difference so minuscule and contrived as to be comparable to, say, the DM telling Aragorn and the hobbits that they're so tired that only the campsite of Weathertop will do, but not so tired that they can't climb up there.

Daw wrote:

Since this is all defending preferences, you are trying to show your base assumptions are reasonable, not that they are right, Right? Calling things Proof is not really helping anything.

Not just that my base assumptions are reasonable, but that the other side is also only preferences. In both directions, thinking "Monk=Lawful" and thinking "Monk may or may not =Lawful" is just a preference. The reasonableness comes in the offering of reciprocity, fairness, and respect.

That is to say, if another player wants his Monk to be lawful, then I want his Monk to be lawful. If he wants to be able to walk up to any random Pathfinder table and introduce a lawful Monk character and reasonably expect no more drama than if he'd introduced "Bob the Human Fighter", then that's what I want for him, too.

I'm offering fairness and respect, but I should be able to expect the same in kind. I don't think lawful is anything more than peripherally (if even that) related to the concept of a Monk, not-Ki-using OR Ki-using, so I have no interest in playing a lawful Monk. I might at one point, but the fact that the character is a Monk would not remotely play into the reasons why I would pick lawful. And I believe I should be able to walk up to any random Pathfinder table, introduce such a not-lawful Monk character, and similarly reasonably expect no drama to come of it. That that respect is so vehemently and consistently refused? Mind-boggling. That this sort of selfishness is encouraged and rewarded, especially by those who then turn around and hold such classes as the Paladin to righteous standards of behavior, the polar opposite of what is being demonstrated at the table? That will never be okay with me.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

Yeah, anyone who says "...but nobody ever complains about other alignment restrictions" in a paladin thread either hasn't spent much time at all on D&D forums, is being willfully ignorant, or being generous, is over-generalizing. Chances are if someone objects to the paladin restrictions, he or she also objects to some or all other alignment restrictions.

It's just the paladin gets more press because he's the poster-boy of restrictive classes -- not only is he an entire base class restricted to a single alignment, but he's got the code which means he has to be LG++, and his restrictions have more ardent defenders because (unless I'm mistaken) they go back further in the game's history than other classes do.

Barbarians aren't that much younger than paladins (at least i remember a 1st ed Ad+D players guide or something with barbarians in it) I think that the barbarian restriction stems from the idea that throwing yourself into a berserk rage is not a particularly disciplined fighting style and that sort of losing yourself to primal fury is simply too difficult for lawfully minded people to do.

Perhaps the paladin's age is a minor contributor then. Something else contributing to the poster-boy's status as the most restrictive class: The paladin can only be human in TSR D&D, though it's all too easy to forget about that now.

(There's probably an exception or two scattered about the TSR splats, but what's new? That's D&D.)

Ventnor wrote:
I thought it was because Barbarians were forced to destroy every magic item they came across.

I only this year discovered that tidbit about the 1e barbarian, and talk about anti-cooperative class design! At least until level (?), when the barb suddenly goes "Oh wait, I should probably at least leave these trinkets for my pals, they might want to use 'em." Yeesh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I thought it was because Barbarians were forced to destroy every magic item they came across.
I only this year discovered that tidbit about the 1e barbarian, and talk about anti-cooperative class design! At least until level (?), when the barb suddenly goes "Oh wait, I should probably at least leave these trinkets for my pals, they might want to use 'em." Yeesh.

ya if there were any characters like that nowadays i have a feeling they would be killed off quite promptly especially in my campaigns


Lady-J wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I thought it was because Barbarians were forced to destroy every magic item they came across.
I only this year discovered that tidbit about the 1e barbarian, and talk about anti-cooperative class design! At least until level (?), when the barb suddenly goes "Oh wait, I should probably at least leave these trinkets for my pals, they might want to use 'em." Yeesh.
ya if there were any characters like that nowadays i have a feeling they would be killed off quite promptly especially in my campaigns

What was that monstrous PRC from 3.0/3.5 that was something similar? Furious rager? They basically made bigger rages but you had to break like 100g in magic items per prc level?


Imbicatus wrote:

Well, there are archetypes and traits that allow non-lawful monks, and almost a dozen ways for lawful rage in non-barbarian classes.

The alignment restrictions should be removed from both classes, but it's an easy house rule I. The meantime...

There is no game balance reason for monks to be lawful, and there is no compelling story reason for them to be so when other classes can use those abilities without being lawful.

There are so many prestige classes, archetypes, feats, multi-class dips, racial traits, magic items, and so forth in 3.PF that there really aren't any restrictions worth mentioning*.

As for "reasons" and "game balance". Well, If the game were reasonable and balanced there would be nothing to post about in the rules forum would there?

;D

Lady-J wrote:

chaotic individuals can also have strict personal codes...

you can be an arbiter of freedom and still bestow yourself with a code of conduct like "i will free any slaves i come across, i will not kill children, i will not subjugate myself to the rules of kingdom laws, i will not do any action which would cause adverse harm to the innocent" this is but one example of a strict code a chaotic person can follow

Until such time as they don't have a "strict code" or decide to change it.

Yes, insanity is a thing. Doesn't make one lawful.

* The only thing that seems to have officially "gone too far" were Paladins of Asmodeus


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Well, there are archetypes and traits that allow non-lawful monks, and almost a dozen ways for lawful rage in non-barbarian classes.

The alignment restrictions should be removed from both classes, but it's an easy house rule I. The meantime...

There is no game balance reason for monks to be lawful, and there is no compelling story reason for them to be so when other classes can use those abilities without being lawful.

There are so many prestige classes, archetypes, feats, multi-class dips, racial traits, magic items, and so forth in 3.PF that there really aren't any restrictions worth mentioning*.

As for "reasons" and "game balance". Well, If the game were reasonable and balanced there would be nothing to post about in the rules forum would there?

;D

Lady-J wrote:

chaotic individuals can also have strict personal codes...

you can be an arbiter of freedom and still bestow yourself with a code of conduct like "i will free any slaves i come across, i will not kill children, i will not subjugate myself to the rules of kingdom laws, i will not do any action which would cause adverse harm to the innocent" this is but one example of a strict code a chaotic person can follow

Until such time as they don't have a "strict code" or decide to change it.

Yes, insanity is a thing. Doesn't make one lawful.

* The only thing that seems to have officially "gone too far" were Paladins of Asmodeus

i beg to differ paladins of asmodeus were a step in the right direction


Lady-J wrote:
i beg to differ paladins of asmodeus were a step in the right direction

You'll have to take that up with the Devs.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Now, using an Avatar example is easier to poke a hole into, in the Pathfinder milieu.

Avatar is, by definition, a Mythic setting. Zaheer being mythically "above all that" is the most simple and reasonable explanation, in system. (Additionally, do we even know that he has advanced since he became non-lawful.) Zaheer can be supported by both assumptions, whether or not lawful is required, so cannot be used as a proof.

Avatar doesn't use the PF system so the Mythic rules are irrelevant to it. The people who wrote Zaheer certainly weren't thinking "well, he can escape alignment restrictions because he's a 3rd tier Mythic character with the Beyond Morality path ability."

However, Zaheer is an example of a character whose beliefs and actions are in line with the "chaotic" alignment, and who is still a master of a mystical, spiritual martial art. What it proves is that the concepts are not contradictory.

If a player of mine wanted to play a character inspired by Zaheer in a non-mythic PF game, I would not be able to explain to them why the rules say that the character should not be allowed to take monk levels.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I thought it was because Barbarians were forced to destroy every magic item they came across.
I only this year discovered that tidbit about the 1e barbarian, and talk about anti-cooperative class design! At least until level (?), when the barb suddenly goes "Oh wait, I should probably at least leave these trinkets for my pals, they might want to use 'em." Yeesh.
ya if there were any characters like that nowadays i have a feeling they would be killed off quite promptly especially in my campaigns
What was that monstrous PRC from 3.0/3.5 that was something similar? Furious rager? They basically made bigger rages but you had to break like 100g in magic items per prc level?

Are you thinking of the infamous frenzied berserker? I might be off base, 'cause that one has no rules regarding magical items. Or maybe the occult slayer, though that one doesn't have any rules about magical items either, just fluff about drinking a lot of caster-hatorade.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
I thought it was because Barbarians were forced to destroy every magic item they came across.
I only this year discovered that tidbit about the 1e barbarian, and talk about anti-cooperative class design! At least until level (?), when the barb suddenly goes "Oh wait, I should probably at least leave these trinkets for my pals, they might want to use 'em." Yeesh.
ya if there were any characters like that nowadays i have a feeling they would be killed off quite promptly especially in my campaigns
What was that monstrous PRC from 3.0/3.5 that was something similar? Furious rager? They basically made bigger rages but you had to break like 100g in magic items per prc level?
Are you thinking of the infamous frenzied berserker? I might be off base, 'cause that one has no rules regarding magical items. Or maybe the occult slayer, though that one doesn't have any rules about magical items either, just fluff about drinking a lot of caster-hatorade.

No frenzied berserker was the one where your rage could hit your friends, there was another one that was all about anti magic and passive bonuses but you had to break magic like daily.

Silver Crusade

The 3rd (not 3.5) Forsaker was the one that required you to smash magical items. It was as gnarly as the Frenzied Berserker so I could definitely see some people considering taking it.


Rysky wrote:
The 3rd (not 3.5) Forsaker was the one that required you to smash magical items. It was as gnarly as the Frenzied Berserker so I could definitely see some people considering taking it.

Wow, I guess no bad idea ever really dies.

Silver Crusade

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The 3rd (not 3.5) Forsaker was the one that required you to smash magical items. It was as gnarly as the Frenzied Berserker so I could definitely see some people considering taking it.
Wow, I guess no bad idea ever really dies.

With everything it got it wasn't really a bad idea, provided you were playing it with other people who wanted to use magic items :3

For a Solo game or as an NPC it was f++$ing glorious.


Makes sense, given that - as I understand it - the initial point of Prestige Classes was for DM's to customize npc's with, not for PC use.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no doubt that, had barbarians originally been printed with a "Lawful only" restriction, and had monks originally been printed with a "chaotic only" restriction, then the same people who are now demanding Lawful Only Monks and Chaotic Only Barbarians would instead be demanding Chaotic Only Monks and Lawful Only Barbarians.

After all, Barbarians are all about living the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle of their ancestors. There's no way you can be a barbarian like that without being lawful.

Meanwhile, Monks outright reject the authority of the lawful secular government of their region, instead putting their faith in an extrajudicial quasi-religious order of martial artists. Hence, Monks cannot be lawful.

Heck, the same goes for pretty much any other class. If the Core Rulebook said that Fighters had to be a particular alignment, the same people defending the monk's alignment restriction would be making the same argument in defense of the fighter's alignment restriction, regardless of what it was. Fighters need a lot of discipline and patience to learn their martial art, so they have to be Lawful. Fighters resolve conflicts with violence instead of diplomacy, so they are inherently Chaotic. The only reason you don't see the same choir of people arguing in favor of either of those alignment restrictions is because they aren't already printed in the books.

The fact is, you can come up with a quick "justification" for any class to be restricted to any alignment. Not all such restrictions can actually be in the rules (for starters, you can't restrict a class to be both Chaotic-only and Lawful-only).


FormerFiend wrote:
Makes sense, given that - as I understand it - the initial point of Prestige Classes was for DM's to customize npc's with, not for PC use.

Mostly, no. PrCs were originally meant to be touches of campaign-specific color for both PCs and NPCs, and every 3e campaign setting does have a few campaign-specific PrCs I think. But then WotC realized that players really really liked them, and started printing dozens and dozens of them in their setting-neutral splatbooks. A very few PrCs have oblique comments about not being suitable PCs -- for example, the infamous frenzied berserker says something like "Due to their penchant for uncrollable rages, FBs aren't well-suited to the adventuring lifestyle." Which of course is overlooked or ignored by at least a few DMs and players.

(Yes, I once saw a FB PC kill a fellow PC after running out of enemies to kill.)

51 to 100 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / lawful barbarians and non lawful monks All Messageboards