lawful barbarians and non lawful monks


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one time I got to play a FB I made sure to tell the party "if I go over here, you all need to stay waaaaaay the f!#& over there." Didn't kill a single party member :3


137ben wrote:
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

I really don't think so. It's more about the expectation that lawful means being focused and dedicated, while chaotic means wild and uncontrolled. It's a pretty reasonable expectation to have and kind of disappointing that the game didn't embrace it, because we are instead left with a rules system where there is no discerning between someone acting lawfully and someone acting chaotically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
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.)

It's NOT overlooked, I've seen a player make an FB fullu knowing it was going to be a liability to the group (it has been, especially since we lack casters able to calm him down), and the DM was sadistic enough to let him, rubbing his hands and laughing maniacally in the process.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the alignment restrictions would make much more sense if the class abilities were actually powered by elemental law/chaos. So shifting alignment means you no longer carry/tap into enough of that energy to perform your amazing feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
137ben wrote:
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
I really don't think so. It's more about the expectation that lawful means being focused and dedicated, while chaotic means wild and uncontrolled. It's a pretty reasonable expectation to have and kind of disappointing that the game didn't embrace it, because we are instead left with a rules system where there is no discerning between someone acting lawfully and someone acting chaotically.
137ben wrote:

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.

I have no doubt that history could have gone as easily as 137ben says as the way it did: Law is more about adhering to traditional culturual norms, espcecially hunter-gatherer ones, while Chaos is more associated with the rejection of civil authority. Oh wait, that's kinda how it is.

However you slice it, traditionalism is about continuity -- not consistency.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I think the alignment restrictions would make much more sense if the class abilities were actually powered by elemental law/chaos. So shifting alignment means you no longer carry/tap into enough of that energy to perform your amazing feats.

Oh, how do you mean?


I think he means a bit more like a Paladin falling

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe. It's really more like the Power Cosmic or gamma rays. If the character doesn't have that energy within them, either by depleting their store of it or no longer being able to keep ahold of it, they can't use those abilities. So the ki points are representing the force of Law within you, and when you've spent them all you don't have enough energy to do it until you rest and recharge that power. Naturally, this relies on other classes being similarly restricted in those abilities, either by alignment or not having them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
137ben wrote:
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
I really don't think so. It's more about the expectation that lawful means being focused and dedicated, while chaotic means wild and uncontrolled. It's a pretty reasonable expectation to have and kind of disappointing that the game didn't embrace it, because we are instead left with a rules system where there is no discerning between someone acting lawfully and someone acting chaotically.

Back in the earliest days, didn't Law=Good and Chaos=Evil?


We can thank Moorcock for that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Maybe. It's really more like the Power Cosmic or gamma rays. If the character doesn't have that energy within them, either by depleting their store of it or no longer being able to keep ahold of it, they can't use those abilities. So the ki points are representing the force of Law within you, and when you've spent them all you don't have enough energy to do it until you rest and recharge that power. Naturally, this relies on other classes being similarly restricted in those abilities, either by alignment or not having them.

To me its more like this

Paladin: All their stuff is granted, cross the beings/powers that grant it and its all gone til you make nice with them.

Monk: The training to get these quasi-supernatural powers is rigorous and requires a self discipline and denial of venal behaviors that runs counter to mortal instinct despite being fundamentally mortal powers, The things that you've mastered aren't unmastered, but until you return to that level of self discipline and style of training (lawful alignment) you can no longer advance along the path.

Barbarian: The barbarian as adventuring class isn't every "barbarian" in a tribe. They're the special few who have learned to set aside the normal subconscious human limits on what the body will perform by losing themselves to utter fury. In the same way as the monk, becoming lawful doesn't unlearn what you already knew how to do, but does indicate a level of self control and self discipline that prevents reaching deeper into that primal fury to draw more out of it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Maybe. It's really more like the Power Cosmic or gamma rays. If the character doesn't have that energy within them, either by depleting their store of it or no longer being able to keep ahold of it, they can't use those abilities. So the ki points are representing the force of Law within you, and when you've spent them all you don't have enough energy to do it until you rest and recharge that power. Naturally, this relies on other classes being similarly restricted in those abilities, either by alignment or not having them.

Sounds at least consistent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Barbarian: The barbarian as adventuring class isn't every "barbarian" in a tribe. They're the special few who have learned to set aside the normal subconscious human limits on what the body will perform by losing themselves to utter fury. In the same way as the monk, becoming lawful doesn't unlearn what you already knew how to do, but does indicate a level of self control and self discipline that prevents reaching deeper into that primal fury to draw more out of it.

This is basically my rationalization. That people who live in a "barbarian" society but stay with their tribal groups are distinct from "Barbarians" the PC adventurer class. Someone who stays with their tribe and lives a traditional lifestyle is someone who is likely lawful, but also someone who is not really appropriate for a PC (these people have ranks in non-Barbarian classes.)

Since the PC is someone who decides to leave their home and family to go to a dungeon and murk a goblin, when a PC is from a particularly tight-knit group that this more or less necessitates "chaotic". On the other hand, if you're from somewhere more "civilized" and you nonetheless are someone ruled by their rage, you could make an argument for that being "chaotic."

I'd certainly be in favor of a lawful-only "Tribal Guardian" archetype for Barbarians, but it would be (unless the entire campaign takes place in the traditional lands of whomever) more or less for NPCs only, and we don't really need to print NPC-only archetypes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So what the PC becomes a barbarian by leaving his tribe of barbarians who are not actually barbarians?


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

So what the PC becomes a barbarian by leaving his tribe of barbarians who are not actually barbarians?

No the PC becomes a Barbarian(class) by tapping into his primal rage. his tribe of barbarians(as in a less developed people) is likely made up of fighters, shaman, commoners, experts, rangers, druids etc etc in addition to Barbarians(class) and trying to apply the rules for Barbarian(class) to barbarians(culture) is apples to oranges. BUT EVEN THEN, the descriptions of the major "barbarian" cultures in pathfinder doesn't describe a particularly lawful(alignment definition) group of people, instead describing people with loyalties in flux, emphasis on personal freedom, loyalty to their small group over a larger "nation" and legal systems based around personal combat, weregild, and simply looking the other way because the dude in charge does.


I don't really have a problem with non-lawful barbarians as I see 'Unbridled rage' being pretty opposed to 'dedicated order'

However, I absolutely HATE Lawful only monks. The Monks were the martial artist class with the increased AC, the flurry of Blows and unarmed combat masters... and I LOVE that. However, as a huge fan of Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris... I rarely see ANY of them playing strictly disciplined and lawful characters. Jackie Chan is perhaps the most chaotic actor there is and if I want to emulate that... I can't. Not to mention any of the other Ninja 'type' characters that are much closer to monks in abilities...

The Martial Artist archetype was good idea, but trading out flurry of Blows makes it pointless. Unarmed fighter Archtype doesn't come close....

Now years later we have Brawlers... and that's not too far off, but there is a whole lot of jumping through hoops for an alignment restriction that shouldn't be. I never would have complained if Barbarians were any 'non-lawful' and Monks were 'Any non-chaotic'. That gives a solid 6 choices and room to play with. But trapping good monks into Lawful Good... that's too restrictive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So he taps into his rage by leaving his tribe?

I don't really buy that.

And having a tribe with rules, traditions and a heiracrchy definitely sounds like lawful to me.
Perhaps not in the legal eyes of the nation they inhabit, but in the more general definition referred to for alingment. Lawful =/= legal.

I think in reality this argument can go round in circles pretty much indefinitely. Because as many have observed arguments can be made for most characters to be of most alignment depending on the aspect of the character you choose to focus upon. This is because alignment is a ridiculously reductionist system. But that isn't the debate.

The debate is why monks and barbs have to be of a particular alignment. The answer at the end of the day is legacy. People have made arguments for why they should be this way, other people have shown presidence or logic/reasoning for why they don't need to be.

That's the impression I get anyway.


Barbarians ARE any non-lawful


Ryan Freire wrote:
Barbarians ARE any non-lawful

Exactly. I wish they had done something similar for the monks.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

So he taps into his rage by leaving his tribe?

I don't really buy that.

And having a tribe with rules, traditions and a heiracrchy definitely sounds like lawful to me.
Perhaps not in the legal eyes of the nation they inhabit, but in the more general definition referred to for alingment. Lawful =/= legal.

I think in reality this argument can go round in circles pretty much indefinitely. Because as many have observed arguments can be made for most characters to be of most alignment depending on the aspect of the character you choose to focus upon. This is because alignment is a ridiculously reductionist system. But that isn't the debate.

The debate is why monks and barbs have to be of a particular alignment. The answer at the end of the day is legacy. People have made arguments for why they should be this way, other people have shown presidence or logic/reasoning for why they don't need to be.

That's the impression I get anyway.

Literally no one said anything about leaving his tribe. Also maybe read up on the actual barbarian cultures in golarion because you're arguing from generalities and i'm arguing from specifics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
To me its more like this

Oh, I'm well aware. I would just prefer it to be more explicit where the monk attracts the black energy of order with his discipline while the barbarian channels the white heat of chaos with his rage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:


Literally no one said anything about leaving his tribe. Also maybe read up on the actual barbarian cultures in golarion because you're arguing from generalities and i'm arguing from specifics.

Uhh yeah they did Possible cabbage about 6 posts up, irony of telling other people to start reading up when you yourself aren't reading the thread you're into.

Quote:

That people who live in a "barbarian" society but stay with their tribal groups are distinct from "Barbarians" the PC adventurer class. Someone who stays with their tribe and lives a traditional lifestyle is someone who is likely lawful, but also someone who is not really appropriate for a PC (these people have ranks in non-Barbarian classes.)

Since the PC is someone who decides to leave their home and family to go to a dungeon and murk a goblin, when a PC is from a particularly tight-knit group that this more or less necessitates "chaotic". On the other hand, if you're from somewhere more "civilized" and you nonetheless are someone ruled by their rage, you could make an argument for that being "chaotic."

And you don't need to play in Golorian to use pathfinder classes so I don't need to know pathfinder barb culture. the class should work outside the setting.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


Literally no one said anything about leaving his tribe. Also maybe read up on the actual barbarian cultures in golarion because you're arguing from generalities and i'm arguing from specifics.

Uhh yeah they did Possible cabbage about 6 posts up, irony of telling other people to start reading up when you yourself aren't reading the thread you're into.

Quote:

That people who live in a "barbarian" society but stay with their tribal groups are distinct from "Barbarians" the PC adventurer class. Someone who stays with their tribe and lives a traditional lifestyle is someone who is likely lawful, but also someone who is not really appropriate for a PC (these people have ranks in non-Barbarian classes.)

Since the PC is someone who decides to leave their home and family to go to a dungeon and murk a goblin, when a PC is from a particularly tight-knit group that this more or less necessitates "chaotic". On the other hand, if you're from somewhere more "civilized" and you nonetheless are someone ruled by their rage, you could make an argument for that being "chaotic."

And you don't need to play in Golorian to use pathfinder classes so I don't need to know pathfinder barb culture. the class should work outside the setting.

Dont quote me then use arguments aimed at another poster maybe.

And the class works fine outside of golarion, you just hate alignment systems.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:


Dont quote me then use arguments aimed at another poster maybe.

I replied to cabbage addressing his discussion on leaving.

Quote:
So what the PC becomes a barbarian by leaving his tribe of barbarians who are not actually barbarians?
You quoted that reply and started addressing me and my address of the subject of leaving. And then told me a few posts later
Quote:
literally no-one had said anything about leaving

That is wrong regardless of who you're addressing and who're they're addressing.

You need to start paying more attention to whats going on in the thread and stop being rude to people when you are the one confusing the discussion.

Quote:


And the class works fine outside of golarion, you just hate alignment systems.

Mechanically the class works fine, the alignment restriction does not in many people's opinion, if it was intended to make sense in a setting specific definition of barbarian it shouldn't have been put in a none setting specific class. It should be a prestige thing. And no I don't hate the alignment system, I think its antiquated and illogical. I hate bigotry and hangovers, I don't feel that strongly about alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Barbarian: The barbarian as adventuring class isn't every "barbarian" in a tribe. They're the special few who have learned to set aside the normal subconscious human limits on what the body will perform by losing themselves to utter fury. In the same way as the monk, becoming lawful doesn't unlearn what you already knew how to do, but does indicate a level of self control and self discipline that prevents reaching deeper into that primal fury to draw more out of it.

This is basically my rationalization. That people who live in a "barbarian" society but stay with their tribal groups are distinct from "Barbarians" the PC adventurer class. Someone who stays with their tribe and lives a traditional lifestyle is someone who is likely lawful, but also someone who is not really appropriate for a PC (these people have ranks in non-Barbarian classes.)

Since the PC is someone who decides to leave their home and family to go to a dungeon and murk a goblin, when a PC is from a particularly tight-knit group that this more or less necessitates "chaotic". On the other hand, if you're from somewhere more "civilized" and you nonetheless are someone ruled by their rage, you could make an argument for that being "chaotic."

I'd certainly be in favor of a lawful-only "Tribal Guardian" archetype for Barbarians, but it would be (unless the entire campaign takes place in the traditional lands of whomever) more or less for NPCs only, and we don't really need to print NPC-only archetypes.

Thank you sir, for using the correct word. If I had to I might rationalize the barb's restriction similarly.

But I do think it's exceedingly strange to have an entire base class devoted to a counter-cultural minority (tribal expats) of a specific sort of culture (hunter-gatherer). It'd be like having a base class entirely devoted to emotionally-sensitive assassins. I agree with Chromatic Durgon, a concept that specific works best as an archetype, PrC, or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are several ways to Rage as a Lawful character. Just to stick to non-magical means (so no Bloodrage, Raging Song, or Rage Domain from Ragathiel) there is the Viking Fighter and the Variant Multiclass Barbarian, the latter having no alignment restriction. You could even take it on a Paladin, and it works beautifully, both mechanically and thematically. So "Rage != Lawful" is not consistent with the mechanics. And as usual, just about any act can be argued as belonging to just about any alignment, making the concept meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
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.

Random tables playing RAW is hardly them showing you selfishness - it is maintaining a consistent baseline to the game. The hypothetical player with the Lawful Monk is in line with RAW, so of course they aren't going to have problems.

Sheesh, some people...

Quark Blast wrote:
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.

I, for one, support our developmental overlords in this matter.

137ben wrote:
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.

Point of order - according to d20PFSRD, Barbarian is just non-Lawful, not Chaotic Only.

* * *

I do think some of these debates would be more straight-forward with two differences:

1, Better/clearer definitions of "Law" and "Chaos" - and possibly changing Law to Order (if only for OG Paladins...)
2, Not handing our things like Rage and Ki pools to classes without these alignment restrictions if those abilities are meant to thematically tie to Law and Chaos.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
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.

Random tables playing RAW is hardly them showing you selfishness - it is maintaining a consistent baseline to the game. The hypothetical player with the Lawful Monk is in line with RAW, so of course they aren't going to have problems.

Sheesh, some people...

No, that's not the selfishness. The selfishness is this:

"Hey, I want to play my lawful Monk character. If the Monk were 'Alignment: Any', then I would still be able to play my lawful Monk character, BUT other players that want to play their not-lawful Monks would be able to do so just as well with having to fight an uphill battle that they shouldn't have to be fighting just for a freaking game.

"Meh. Screw 'em. It's no skin off my teeth. What exists as is works for me, and even though it could easily be improved to work for me AND for others, instead I'm going to dig my heels in and decide that my enjoyment can only come at the expense of others."

I mean, what in God's name would you call that, other than selfish?

"Sheesh, some people...", indeed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Prefacing all this with the caveat, that this is all preference and infinitely diverse concepts, No one here can be RIGHT. Also, when you get down to specifics, as with anything, the borders get indistinct.

There have been some wierd arguments that my overly picky and pedantic personality demands I take one last poke at.

Barbarians are non-lawful because they cause Chaos, en-masse or singularly. Well, at the height of the Khan dominated Mongol civilization, it was said that a a woman could ride alone, carrying large amounts of gold, throughout the empire, and not fear any molestation. There is enough corroboration of this claim, from neutral and even hostile contemporaneous sources, that there is at least some basis in fact. Now I couldn't come up with a better example of a lawful society. Now the chaos they spread expanding their influence, especially to those who refused to pay tribute is also legendary.

The WWII Japanese and German cultures were, and are, dominated by Law. Stories from those Nationals who chose to rescue people from the various atrocities relate a lot of angst over their actions going against what they saw as lawful authority was wrong, but the atrocities were worse.

Judging a culture from the outside, especially through the lens of warfare, is fallacious and facetious. Warfare is pretty much chaotic, no matter who is prosecuting it, barring, perhaps, one old Star Trek episode. Nothing is absolute. A rage inflicted/driven berserker could be lawful or chaotic, does he embrace or try to fight it. Also, what situations the barbarian chooses to "let out the beast" is relevant.

Lastly, the value of alignments is basically a shorthand, to simplify things. It is a Soft subject. As so many in the forums want Hard, definitive things, we end up with the angst and sturmdrang that crops up here. Equally valid cases can be made either way, on ANYTHING people have chosen in their arguments.

I personally favor a less restrictive approach, and have no difficulty conceptualizing barbarian cultures and individuals of any alignment, and Monkly philosophies of any allignment. My preference here. Your preferences are just as valid, even if we might dislike each other's games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
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.

Random tables playing RAW is hardly them showing you selfishness - it is maintaining a consistent baseline to the game. The hypothetical player with the Lawful Monk is in line with RAW, so of course they aren't going to have problems.

Sheesh, some people...

No, that's not the selfishness. The selfishness is this:

"Hey, I want to play my lawful Monk character. If the Monk were 'Alignment: Any', then I would still be able to play my lawful Monk character, BUT other players that want to play their not-lawful Monks would be able to do so just as well with having to fight an uphill battle that they shouldn't have to be fighting just for a freaking game.

"Meh. Screw 'em. It's no skin off my teeth. What exists as is works for me, and even though it could easily be improved to work for me AND for others, instead I'm going to dig my heels in and decide that my enjoyment can only come at the expense of others."

I mean, what in God's name would you call that, other than selfish?

"Sheesh, some people...", indeed.

That's not selfish. That's just how the game is setup and I doubt many people want Alignment restrictions on class just to snub or take away enjoyment from others. Maybe just maybe they actually like the restrictions.

Options exist for a non-lawful "Monk". You have Martial Artist, Brawler, or a Unarmed Fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Commoner doesn't have alignment restrictions either. That does not mean. "Play commoner instead" is a valid argument either, and yes play "viking fighter, martial artist monk or brawler" have just as much merit as "go play a commoner."

Mechanics matter for character concept. And it does not matter what the reason for wanting to use specific mechanics is, for that matter. Only thing more stupid than alignment restrictions is alignment itself.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
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.

Random tables playing RAW is hardly them showing you selfishness - it is maintaining a consistent baseline to the game. The hypothetical player with the Lawful Monk is in line with RAW, so of course they aren't going to have problems.

Sheesh, some people...

No, that's not the selfishness. The selfishness is this:

"Hey, I want to play my lawful Monk character. If the Monk were 'Alignment: Any', then I would still be able to play my lawful Monk character, BUT other players that want to play their not-lawful Monks would be able to do so just as well with having to fight an uphill battle that they shouldn't have to be fighting just for a freaking game.

"Meh. Screw 'em. It's no skin off my teeth. What exists as is works for me, and even though it could easily be improved to work for me AND for others, instead I'm going to dig my heels in and decide that my enjoyment can only come at the expense of others."

I mean, what in God's name would you call that, other than selfish?

"Sheesh, some people...", indeed.

That's not selfish. That's just how the game is setup and I doubt many people want Alignment restrictions on class just to snub or take away enjoyment from others. Maybe just maybe they actually like the restrictions.

Options exist for a non-lawful "Monk". You have Martial Artist, Brawler, or a Unarmed Fighter.

If I want to never play a Gnome character, I have two options available to me.

1) I self-censor. I don't play a Gnome character. I do not allow myself to get roped into playing a Gnome character. If I'm randomly deciding what to play and I accidentally roll Gnome, I reroll until I land on a not-Gnome selection.

2) I push for there to be no Gnome options available for anyone. No, not just at my table; I'm talking across the entire game, to the point that anyone wanting to play a Gnome character, even someone I've never met in another state or country, has to fight a philosophical war to do so.

One of those is obscenely more selfish than the other and it should not be difficult to figure out which one.

That Pathfinder set up the game with certain players at a disadvantage does not change the fact that it is plainly selfish to exacerbate that paradigm. And while, yes, there are players ignorant of how the game encourages their preferences via a mechanism (the alignment restrictions) that makes their preferences come at the expense of others, how is that an excuse for the forumites here who DO know good and bloody well better, let alone the developers who encourage such awful behavior?

And I reject the notion that the onus should be on me to pick and choose from alternate classes or archetypes just because someone else couldn't be bothered to play a lawful Monk without knowing that not-lawful Monks weren't allowed. Or do you agree that someone who has their heart set on playing a Gnome character should settle for a Dwarf just because some random jerk thousands of miles away didn't want to play a Gnome?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

If I were to look at this from the perspective of someone who enjoys lawful monks(not hard given that I've played a lawful monk & enjoyed it), I'd ask myself a few questions;

If the restriction were removed, would I still be able to play a lawful monk?

Given that I haven't seen anyone seriously considering the restriction being replaced by "has to be non-lawful", I'm going to assume the answer is yes, yes I would be.

Would removing the restriction increase other people's enjoyment of the game?

Yes. There is clearly some percentage - without scientific polling I won't speculate on whether that's a minority or majority or how significant either portion is* - that would enjoy the game more without the restriction.

Would the removal of the restriction actively, negatively impact my ability to enjoy playing a lawful aligned monk, knowing that others could play a non-lawful monk?

For me, personally, I can say that the answer to that question is no. I would still be able to enjoy playing the game just as much.

If the answer to that question was 'yes', I'd like to imagine that I'd do some soul searching as to why a system that allows me to do this thing that I want to do while also allowing other people to do the thing they want to do harms my enjoyment of the game.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
2) I push for there to be no Gnome options available for anyone. No, not just at my table; I'm talking across the entire game, to the point that anyone wanting to play a Gnome character, even someone I've never met in another state or country, has to fight a philosophical war to do so.

Except no one is doing this and it is a false equivalence to claim so. No one is championing for Monks to have a new alignment restriction placed upon them, they already have one and have had it for awhile. So having someone who likes the alignment system and alignment restrictions is neither selfish nor attacking someone who doesn't like the system just because they happen to like it.

Allowing something not normally allowed by the rules is much easier and goes over better than disallowing something normally allowed by the rules. If you perceive a fault in the system and want an option to be open to everyone, such as non-Lawful Monks, and claim that if you don't like it you can keep them Lawful in your own games then you're not actually suggesting a fix to the fault, you're just shifting the problem onto the other group who will now perceive a fault, which is where a lot of pushback is coming from. It's the same as people claiming just make it a home rule in your own game to play Non-Lawful Monks, it doesn't actually solve anything. The only difference is one is already a rule whereas one is not, and changing it simply flips it rather than solving it.

So can we cut back on the attacks and insults please? The other thread had already been locked and this one is on track to be locked too it seems.

Back to the spirit of the thread, the Monk. I like the Alignment system, I like restrictions, I see them as structuring rather crippling for the most part, and I can see why Monk's have to be Lawful, viewing Lawful as disciplined (which in the case of the Monk it is for the most part) but then that implies non-Lawful can't be disciplined or employ regimes of exercise and meditation in order to become supernatural warriors with bodies honed to perfection, and has been talked about in this thread and probably shown elsewhere if you looked you could probably find numerous examples of supernatural martial artists who wouldn't sync with the Pathfinder Alignment of Lawful.

So if someone wanted their GM to allow non-Lawful monks while still modeling them on what they've been seen as for so long I would suggest something like this being added to the class: A Monk replenishes their Ki pool each day by spending 1 hour in meditation and training that hones their body and mind. And with that you can now have a non-Lawful Monk that is still very disciplined and still captures all the aesthetics of the supernatully gifted martial artist as they are commonly associated with.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
FormerFiend wrote:
If the answer to that question was 'yes', I'd like to imagine that I'd do some soul searching as to why a system that allows me to do this thing that I want to do while also allowing other people to do the thing they want to do harms my enjoyment of the game.

For me, it wouldn't be the fact that options are opened for others that would harm my enjoyment, but that something was taken away.

I like the alignment system, and things that have alignment restrictions add to them I think in some (Monk) but not all (Barbarian) cases, makes them just a bit more than if they didn't have that. So while it is a restriction, I don't see it personally as a negative, and removing it would feel like it was losing something, but see my previous post about the Monk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the same disagreement any time one of these "why is X restricted to Y" arguments come up.

A lot of people (myself included) find limitations are very effective at driving creativity and get more ideas this way.

Some people find that limitations clash with the vision they approach their character with, and that rankles.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
If the answer to that question was 'yes', I'd like to imagine that I'd do some soul searching as to why a system that allows me to do this thing that I want to do while also allowing other people to do the thing they want to do harms my enjoyment of the game.

For me, it wouldn't be the fact that options are opened for others that would harm my enjoyment, but that something was taken away.

I like the alignment system, and things that have alignment restrictions add to them I think in some (Monk) but not all (Barbarian) cases, makes them just a bit more than if they didn't have that. So while it is a restriction, I don't see it personally as a negative, and removing it would feel like it was losing something, but see my previous post about the Monk.

I just fundamentally disagree with that assessment. I don't perceive the removal of the alignment restriction as taking away anything, but rather as a gain as there are now a wider swath of character types one could play a monk as without gaming the alignment system to start with.

I also fundamentally do not perceive alignment restrictions as adding to the class. Just as I don't see the LG restriction on the paladin as adding to it, making it better, or more special. That just does not resonate with me.

I don't see this as a zero some game. What I do think is that people are programmed to react very strongly to a perceived loss, even when no loss is really occurring.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well then we just fundamentally disagree.

And to me it would be a loss, becaus something was being removed. You do not see it as a loss, I do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're going with the Lawful=Discipline idea, then Barbarians should be forced to be lawful.

Think about it. When they are in the midst of their barbarian rage, do they lash out and kill everyone around them? No. They know not to hurt their allies. They can plan the best ways to approach their enemies. They can use tactics like sundering an enemy's armor or tripping them to put them at a disadvantage, rather than just mindlessly hacking away at them. They are in control of their rage, since they can easily decide to stop raging whenever they want to.

Chaotic barbarians don't make any sense, alignment-wise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Well then we just fundamentally disagree.

And to me it would be a loss, becaus something was being removed. You do not see it as a loss, I do.

And while I respect your right to have that opinion, that also doesn't mean that you're right.

It may certainly be objectively true that, if the alignment restriction on the monk were to be implemented, you would feel a loss, and you would perceive a loss, but that doesn't mean a loss actually occurred.

People feel and perceive things all the time that are out of line with objective reality, and they do so on issues that are far more meaningful and substantive and impactful than this.

Silver Crusade

As someone with anger issues let me say that just because you can direct your Rage when it flares up by by enforcing discipline upon yourself doesn't make you a good example of discipline or Lawful, since if we're talking about Lawful we're talking about your very essence, and being that emotional doesn't lend itself itself well discipline. I like discipline, it keeps me together, but I would not say I am a disciplined person.

Conversely your assessment implied that Chaotic = stupid or mindless, which isn't true.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

As someone with anger issues let me say that just because you can direct your Rage when it flares up by by enforcing discipline upon yourself doesn't make you a good example of discipline or Lawful, since if we're talking about Lawful we're talking about your very essence, and being that emotional doesn't lend itself itself well discipline. I like discipline, it keeps me together, but I would not say I am a disciplined person.

Conversely your assessment implied that Chaotic = stupid or mindless, which isn't true.

Well, if Lawful=disciplined, then Chaotic=undisciplined, which means just letting your rage control you rather than you controlling it.

So I guess that means Barbarians should be forced to be neutral on the law-chaos scale, then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do think that the notion of barbarians needing to be unlawful has been debunked thoroughly enough both from a balance and logic standpoint that arguing the point is perhaps beating a dead horse at this stage of the game.

Silver Crusade

FormerFiend wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Well then we just fundamentally disagree.

And to me it would be a loss, becaus something was being removed. You do not see it as a loss, I do.

And while I respect your right to have that opinion, that also doesn't mean that you're right.

It may certainly be objectively true that, if the alignment restriction on the monk were to be implemented, you would feel a loss, and you would perceive a loss, but that doesn't mean a loss actually occurred.

People feel and perceive things all the time that are out of line with objective reality, and they do so on issues that are far more meaningful and substantive and impactful than this.

I'll ask, once, that you do not tell me how to feel or that my perceptions are somehow out of touch with reality when I say if something was removed and I would view it as a loss, that I would indeed personally view it as a loss. You obviously would not, and I acknowledged that. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't view it as being a loss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^-^
Well, beating the dead horse is just wise isn't it. Horsemeat is notoriously tough you know.


I want to push back on the idea that alignment restrictions are literally immoral.

Tectorman wrote:
If I want to never play a Gnome...

The trouble with that argument is you could replace Gnome with anything. RAW Pathfinder doesn't give Fighters d12 hp per level, allow players to be Aboleths, have 12 skill ranks in diplomacy and only a single attack per round, or contain the internet. It isn't selfish / immoral to put limits on what exists in a setting as a narrative issue or what is permitted mechanically as a balance issue.

If you really want to play an internet hacker it isn't selfish for Paizo to say "those don't exist in Golarion" at a company wide level, if you really want to play an Aboleth it isn't selfish for a GM to say "my game is only open to core rulebook races" at the level of an individual game.

"Anarchists who master kung-fu don't exist in Golarion" is an artistic choice about what kind of story Paizo is trying to tell, just like every restriction on your character options. It's a dumb choice, it's a bad choice, it's a choice I ignore in my games, but it isn't a moral issue. You shouldn't conflate your aesthetic tastes with morality.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Prefacing all this with the caveat, that this is all preference and infinitely diverse concepts, No one here can be RIGHT. Also, when you get down to specifics, as with anything, the borders get indistinct.

I personally favor a less restrictive approach, and have no difficulty conceptualizing barbarian cultures and individuals of any alignment, and Monkly philosophies of any allignment. My preference here. Your preferences are just as valid, even if we might dislike each other's games.

As a matter of etiquette, I agree, it's often more expedient to simply say "Well everyone's preferences are valid, and there's no right answer here." And yeah, if we drill down deep enough, all preferences and all ethics are a matter of emotion. And yeah, individual campaigns and settings may have themes that warrant this or that restriction. And no, all of this debate probably doesn't have any influence on what a game company chooses to publish. And yeah, pretend elf-game ethics pales in importance when contrasted with real world ethics. I won't trivialize real people with real problems by elevating a game to their importance.

All those provisos aside, when it comes to a rpg's base rules, there is a right way and a wrong way. One way is based on a nearly-universal human emotion and a principle which grants all people value, while the other way is based on the whimsical twists of culture-specific history and a zero-sum emotion.

The no-restriction position is essentially a rpg-extension of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I.e., don't tell me how to play my characters and I won't tell you how to play yours. This and the Golden Rule are extensions of the nearly-universal empathy emotion: Your enjoyment of the game is as important as mine. This is the altruistic position.

The pro-restriction position is essentially This is my vision of this class, and you must abide by my vision. Most pro-restriction gamers don't think of it this way, or at least won't say so -- see all of the "That's just the way the game is written" sort of arguments that get thrown around on these sort of threads. I certainly didn't think of it this way when I enforced D&D's traditional restrictions -- I was simply young and naive, and I assumed that every rule in the game was a carefully-considered part of a unified whole.

Whether a gamer comes to the pro-restriction position out of naivety or a deep internalization of D&D's traditional rules, the origin is the same: The first D&D games were a couple of home-campaigns where they were basically throwing things at a wall and seeing what stuck. They had a bunch of ideas floating around in their heads, and they made up some stuff they thought'd be fun for their tables, never expecting D&D to take off the way it did. See: the cleric class, D&D's first gish class which was created entirely to challenge a vampire PC who had gotten out of hand. (Turn undead roughly mirrors Van Helsing's knowledge of Dracula's weaknesses.) But D&D did take off in a big way, and a lot of those whimsical table-specific things got carried outward by an explosion of capitalism.

The pro-restriction position is the emotional attachment to -- or in my case, a blind trust in -- someone else's personal vision of a thing, without regard to those actually playing the game now. This is the zero-sum position which assigns value to my preferences, but not to yours. It is the selfish position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Rysky wrote:

As someone with anger issues let me say that just because you can direct your Rage when it flares up by by enforcing discipline upon yourself doesn't make you a good example of discipline or Lawful, since if we're talking about Lawful we're talking about your very essence, and being that emotional doesn't lend itself itself well discipline. I like discipline, it keeps me together, but I would not say I am a disciplined person.

Conversely your assessment implied that Chaotic = stupid or mindless, which isn't true.

Well, if Lawful=disciplined, then Chaotic=undisciplined, which means just letting your rage control you rather than you controlling it.

So I guess that means Barbarians should be forced to be neutral on the law-chaos scale, then.

Yuo mean other than the fact that while in a rage they cant use skills or abilities that require focus? Or cast spells if they have them without investing further in just that ability?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Rysky wrote:

As someone with anger issues let me say that just because you can direct your Rage when it flares up by by enforcing discipline upon yourself doesn't make you a good example of discipline or Lawful, since if we're talking about Lawful we're talking about your very essence, and being that emotional doesn't lend itself itself well discipline. I like discipline, it keeps me together, but I would not say I am a disciplined person.

Conversely your assessment implied that Chaotic = stupid or mindless, which isn't true.

Well, if Lawful=disciplined, then Chaotic=undisciplined, which means just letting your rage control you rather than you controlling it.

So I guess that means Barbarians should be forced to be neutral on the law-chaos scale, then.

Yuo mean other than the fact that while in a rage they cant use skills or abilities that require focus? Or cast spells if they have them without investing further in just that ability?

But they can also choose which enemy they want to attack rather than mindlessly react to enemies that hit them, and know not to attack their allies while in a supposedly "mindless" rage. This means they have enough discipline to control the rage, and discipline is antithetical to chaos according to alignment.

So, chaotic barbarians don't make sense, since they do have discipline.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Well then we just fundamentally disagree.

And to me it would be a loss, becaus something was being removed. You do not see it as a loss, I do.

And while I respect your right to have that opinion, that also doesn't mean that you're right.

It may certainly be objectively true that, if the alignment restriction on the monk were to be implemented, you would feel a loss, and you would perceive a loss, but that doesn't mean a loss actually occurred.

People feel and perceive things all the time that are out of line with objective reality, and they do so on issues that are far more meaningful and substantive and impactful than this.

I'll ask, once, that you do not tell me how to feel or that my perceptions are somehow out of touch with reality when I say if something was removed and I would view it as a loss, that I would indeed personally view it as a loss. You obviously would not, and I acknowledged that. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't view it as being a loss.

Prefacing this by saying that I initially wrote and deleted another post after thinking better of the argument that I was using and accidentally clicking the submit button when I was trying to erase it.

That said, I feel as though what I said there is being misunderstood. Possibly as a failure on my part to effectively communicate.

I'm not trying to tell you what you feel. If you tell me you would perceive a loss at the removal of the restriction, I believe that you are telling the truth, and I believe that you would genuinely feel and perceive a loss. I believe that specifically because you told me and I don't have any reason to doubt you.

What I am saying is that just because you do feel that - however genuinely you feel it - doesn't make the loss itself objectively real. The feeling is real, and is real to you. But it is an observable and documented phenomenon that people can and do perceive a loss when none occurs. Specifically in instances where the thing being removed doesn't have a real, appreciable value.

The removal of exclusivity is often felt by the party that formerly had that exclusivity. That doesn't mean they've actually lost anything; they can still do the thing that they were doing. The only thing that has changed is that other people can do it, as well.

So while I believe you when you say that you would perceive a loss, and I am absolutely not trying to tell you how or what you feel, or even how you should feel, I am saying that just because you feel a thing, that doesn't mean your feeling matches up with reality.

And I for one do not believe that rules should be made to exclude people when the only consequence of including people is that some people feel a sense of loss that the thing is no longer exclusive. Because I do not believe that their sense of loss at the removal of that exclusivity comes remotely close to balancing the net gain of people now being included.

101 to 150 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