| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?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.
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.
Every chaotically aligned mortal isn't a completely uncontrolled ball of random action, thats what a protean is. And they don't have to be chaotic, just non-lawful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every chaotically aligned mortal isn't a completely uncontrolled ball of random action, thats what a protean is. And they don't have to be chaotic, just non-lawful.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?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.
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.
I'm just saying that barbarians have the discipline to control an extreme emotional state, which requires extremely great willpower.
And if we define the lawful alignment as having a lot of discipline, and the chaotic alignment as having a lack of discipline, then I think that chaotic people wouldn't have the willpower to direct and channel their rage towards the right targets. And, most importantly, turn that rage off once they no longer need it.
People with that amount of control over their emotions cannot be chaotic. Therefore, it logically makes sense that barbarians should not be allowed to be chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Monk/Barbarian divide is more about internally developed discipline vs. externally developed discipline.
Which is to say that a Barbarian learns to control their rage on their own, and probably does not have an ancient tradition, or a tutor, or anything but their own willpower.
Whereas a monk probably learns their stuff at a monastery where they work their way up from being an acolyte all the way to the 36th Chamber of Shaolin, from a wizened abbot who reads secret wisdom from the scrolls of their order dating back hundreds or thousands of years. To not get kicked out of that kind of place well before you graduate, you have to be the rule-following type.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Options exist for a non-lawful "Monk". You have Martial Artist, Brawler, or a Unarmed Fighter.
What if the mysticism is an important part of the character concept?
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.
This is why, despite the fact that I actually like the alignment system (occasional frustration about the messiness of the Law-Chaos axis aside), I don't like alignment restrictions.
Alignment is a way to start a conversation about your character's beliefs and values. Alignment restrictions don't facilitate that - they either shut down discussion or cause arguments and hurt feelings.
If you're trying to use alignment to say something about how class works, a strong suggestion would suffice. This even gives you a chance to explain the reasoning. For example "Even in absence of a formal monastic tradition, mastering the mystical art of ki requires an amount of self-discipline rarely seen in non-lawful individuals." That way, there aren't arguments about whether the monk is allowed to lie to the sheriff, groups can make an informed decision about whether the reasoning fits how they see monks and lawfulness working, and it encourages justifying deviations from the norm rather than just forbidding it.
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.
There's a big difference between mechanical and narrative/setting limits. The PF Core Rulebook is supposed to be setting-neutral. For example, the CRB mentions that a cleric can be dedicated to an ideal rather than a deity, which is not allowed within the Golarion setting. It even says "Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity," acknowledging the fact that this approach is not suited for all games and that the GM is free to disallow it for narrative or setting reasons. But the CRB goes out of its way to allow the concept because the concept is not mechanically problematic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is to say that a Barbarian learns to control their rage on their own, and probably does not have an ancient tradition, or a tutor, or anything but their own willpower.
One could as easily say that the barbarian ways of controlling their rage are a tradition passed down in their tribes from generation to generation, via songs taught to them by their forebears.
Which would, ironically, make barbarian rage even more lawful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Monk/Barbarian divide is more about internally developed discipline vs. externally developed discipline.
Even if we assume it does, that doesn't translate into either being innately lawful or chaotic. Nothing stops a barbarian from having a tutor or ancient tradition and a monk isn't forced into a monastery.
If reading "secret wisdom from the scrolls of their order dating back hundreds or thousands of years" made you lawful, every wizard in history would be lawful... After all, "To not get kicked out of [hogwarts] well before you graduate, you have to be the rule-following type."
| 1 person 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.
Very true.
Random idea I'd like to run past those of the restrictions-breed-creativity persuasion:
(Assuming the usual non-Evil-PCs sort of campaign, and no player is required to do this.)
Write down the six non-Evil alignments.
Number them 1 to 6.
Roll a d6.
Your character must be that alignment, go. If we need a stick to make this idea work, say you take a 10% XP penalty if you become a different alignment. Or a penalty to die rolls, or whatever you think is an appropriate stick.
(If your class pick includes aligned features that clearly don't make sense with your alignment, such as smite evil for a LN character, invert that feature to a more appropriate aligned type.)
Does this sound like fun?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
assuming its value is supposed as a soft subject, why on earth do they use it as the bases for hard restrictions. When these alignment threads come up it is almost always the forums are responding to hard definitive uses of the alignment system.
Perhaps it could have some use as a short hand soft subject, but that would first require that it was used in such a way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I will say on this issue that separates it from the paladin issue is that it's harder to find a compromise solution.
For paladins I think that changing alignment restrictions to match the paladin's deity, and having deity-specific codes of ethics represents a perfectly reasonable compromise position.
For a monk or barbarian, though, it seems to me that it's an all or nothing proposition.
I'm still a firm believer that we shouldn't be married to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas for no other reason than tradition. I maintain that tradition for it's own sake is pointless. So I'm still on the side of changing it. Just don't have an olive branch to hand out with this one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"
Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.
Or make anyone who likes how the current game is "selfish", "non inclusive", "naive"...etc.
I think we get you don't like it. But your opinion of how the game should be changed doesn't excuse poor behavior.
So how about cut the insulting language and condescending attiude some of you have.
Thanks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree up to a point. The core rules are much less setting specific than (for example) the Inner Sea World Guide, but they're hardly a neutral set of rules for running generic fantasy.
You are correct that "setting neutral" is not quite accurate. In fact, I'd argue that it's not possible to make a truly setting neutral fantasy game system because there is no universal standard for how magic works.
However if the game designer intends to make a relatively setting-neutral system, it makes sense to avoid adding unnecessary setting-related restrictions.
Pathfinder has to make assumptions about what kind of magic is available because it needs to make rules for that. Pathfinder does not have to make assumptions about whether clerics can gain power from something other than worship of a single deity - individual gaming tables can work out those narrative details. Nor does the system have to make assumptions about whether monks' and barbarians' powers are linked to their alignments.
If Michael Morcock style struggles between elemental Chaos and Law aren't your cup of tea, there is a lot of house ruling you'd have to do even to Core Pathfinder to cut them out.
Actually, it's the opposite. It takes a good amount of houseruling to run a Law vs Chaos game because the rules are biased in favour of Good vs Evil conflicts. I had to re-write paladins to Smite Chaos, for example, and adjust DR so that demons have DR/lawful and devils have DR/chaos rather than both having DR/good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"
Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.
Or make anyone who likes how the current game is "selfish", "non inclusive", "naive"...etc.
I think we get you don't like it. But your opinion of how the game should be changed doesn't excuse poor behavior.
So how about cut the insulting language and condescending attiude some of you have.
Thanks.
My job in these debates is not to make the other side's argument for them by pretending that I think they really do have some great points and that their position is totally valid even though I disagree with them, whether or not I actually do, in the interest of politeness. Especially when they extend no such courtesy to me.
My job is to argue for my position in the strongest terms I can. My job is to make my case, and to dispute theirs. My job is to call things as I objectively see them(always aware that I'm a failable individual who is perfectly capable of having bias and blindspots), not to be neutral.
If I think an idea is bad, I'm going to call it a bad idea. If I think a concept is outdated, i'm going to call it outdated. If I think a decision was arbitrary, I'm going to call it arbitrary.
If arguing for my position strongly instead of conceding to the opposition at every turn comes off as insulting or condescending, well, frankly I do not care.
Now, if I'm in a situation where I genuinely think both sides do have a point and both sides do have some merit, then I'll say so and will argue from that position. But on issues where I don't believe that - and alignment restrictions on base classes is one of those issues - I'm not going to pretend otherwise just because people don't like having their positions challenged.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"
Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.
Whether they're bad or not is subjective but I think the fact that its generally accepted most well fleshed out characters can be argued for many alignments(see batman). Alongside the fact that many in this thread have shown perfectly reasonable rational for lawful barbs and chaotic monks does show it is arbitrary.
Outdated is a bit harder to quantify, there are people hanging around from the very earliest days of DnD who did and always have objected to alignment and new folks who like it. So I think its hard to say. I would argue its quite an old fashioned idea to lock certain classes behind roleplay walls. Like bards having in the passed had alignment restrictions and Paladins of the past being restricted to certain races. One which I believe the newer editions (5e) have mostly abandoned? Can't say for certain on that, my 5e knowledge is limited.
"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"
Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.
Whether they're bad or not is subjective but I think the fact that its generally accepted most well fleshed out characters can be argued for many alignments(see batman). Alongside the fact that many in this thread have shown perfectly reasonable rational for lawful barbs and chaotic monks does show it is arbitrary.
Outdated is a bit harder to quantify, there are people hanging around from the very earliest days of DnD who did and always have objected to alignment and new folks who like it. So I think its hard to say. I would argue its quite an old fashioned idea to lock certain classes behind roleplay walls. Like bards having in the passed had alignment restrictions and Paladins of the past being restricted to certain races. One which I believe the newer editions (5e) have mostly abandoned? Can't say for certain on that, my 5e knowledge is limited.
5th Edition did remove the alignment restriction on monks, at least. I can't imagine they kept the restrictions on bards but I didn't check when I looked earlier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if health care was only available to rich white men and some one came along as said hey that's kinda bad lets make health care available to every one would that also be a loss?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 will admit that I don't find this to be an entirely valid analogue as while I'm personally in favor of universal health care, in that case there are finite resources having to be divided for more and more people(which of course means better resource allocation as a solution, but still).
Earlier in the post I deleted I used the analogy of same-sex marriage; as people who advocated against it do genuinely feel like they've lost something and the sanctity of their marriages has been tarnished because same-sex couples are allowed to be married, even though objectively that's nonsense and they haven't lost anything.
I decided to go in a different way because I felt that that was perhaps too inflammatory and too unfair to the other side to compare them to people who were against gay marriage - it is an exceedingly extreme example if a comparable one in demonstrating how people can genuinely perceive and feel a loss when none has occurred.
People not being able to play non-lawful monks is of course so far removed from same-sex couples being able to get married that I'll concede it's more than a little insulting to compare the situation(another reason why I thought better of that deleted post), but it is comparable in that no tangible or even intangible resources are being spread out and diminished because of a removal of a restriction. The marriages of straight couples are as valid and as sacred now as they were before the supreme court decision, and the lawful aligned monks would be as enjoyable to play if non-lawful monks were allowed.
Welp
Shit got political real quick
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FF,
This is a discussion forum. Our jobs are to think, not to win. Your job is to present and explore your own ideas, and to read and explore the ideas of others. Pointing out weaknesses and consequences to ideas is OK. Crushing them, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To try to get this thread on track, I think the basic disconnect is that some people try to find meaning in mechanics, while some people find mechanics are standing in the way of what they want.
Personally I see "Monks are lawful" and think "what does that tell me about Monks". So I see it as "a monk learns their craft from a tutor, if not a monastery/temple, the class is about more than just being good at punching people, and so we're talking about a specific type of martial artist, not just any character you can find in a martial arts movie." Some of those other "good at punching" characters are better represented by Unarmed Fighters, Brawlers, the Martial Artist archetype for Monks, or Vigilantes.
I see "Barbarians are non-lawful" and think "what does that tell me about Barbarians" and I can see "Well, that probably means there's no Barbarian temple or formal training for Barbarians (further confirmed by Barbarians being in the "Intuitive" category for age.)"
Not every game is going to be able to support all kinds of character concepts, so I prefer to read the books to learn what sorts of things I can play, rather than just assuming I should be able to do whatever.
"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"
Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.
Whether they're bad or not is subjective but I think the fact that its generally accepted most well fleshed out characters can be argued for many alignments(see batman). Alongside the fact that many in this thread have shown perfectly reasonable rational for lawful barbs and chaotic monks does show it is arbitrary.
Outdated is a bit harder to quantify, there are people hanging around from the very earliest days of DnD who did and always have objected to alignment and new folks who like it. So I think its hard to say. I would argue its quite an old fashioned idea to lock certain classes behind roleplay walls. Like bards having in the passed had alignment restrictions and Paladins of the past being restricted to certain races. One which I believe the newer editions (5e) have mostly abandoned? Can't say for certain on that, my 5e knowledge is limited.
Yeah I play both Pathfinder and 5e.
Alignment is a matter of personal preference. I enjoy Alignment and having restrictions; it's why I like Pathfinder. I've had to make hard choices when making characters and I personally don't mind that. For example when I'm feeling a Divine Champion I tend to go towards Paladin, unless I want a champion of Desna then I end up using Warpriest.
Some people don't like that and that's cool. I'm just comfortable working with certain boundaries.
5e still has restrictions, but they are much more lax. Paladin in 5e isn't restricted untill you take an oath, which don't flat out say LG or CG bit the oaths code dictates my alignment basically.
Or in 5e if I want an battlemage I use Wizard + multiclassing into a class that gives heavy armor.
But they are like apples and oranges (Pathfinder versus 5e) both have merits but it mainly comes down to what I want personally at the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nothing has alignment restrictions in 5E
One of the few legacies that 5e took from 4e.
I decided to go in a different way because I felt that that was perhaps too inflammatory and too unfair to the other side to compare them to people who were against gay marriage - it is an exceedingly extreme example if a comparable one in demonstrating how people can genuinely perceive and feel a loss when none has occurred.
I don't think it's unfair to point out how the alignment restriction debate and the marriage equality debate share quite a few striking similarities, so long as we don't start pointing fingers or claiming that being in favor of whatever restriction makes one a real life bigot. Keep things in perspective sure, but I don't have a problem pointing out that some folks may be applying inconsistent standards to different parts of their lives.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FF,
This is a discussion forum. Our jobs are to think, not to win. Your job is to present and explore your own ideas, and to read and explore the ideas of others. Pointing out weaknesses and consequences to ideas is OK. Crushing them, not so much.
I have thought, I have listened, and I have found - on this particular subject of alignment restrictions - the arguments to be profoundly unconvincing. When not simply making an appeal to tradition for it's own sake, they are held up by tautologies, false equivalencies, baseless assertions about game balance that don't hold up to scrutiny, and simple statements of a personal preference that wouldn't actually be taken away if the alignment restriction was.
If my counterpoints to those arguments are seen as "crushing", then perhaps that is an indictment of just how flimsy those arguments really are upon examination.
Ultimately I respect everyone's right to have an opinion. But that doesn't equate to respecting everyone's opinion.
Just as I have the opinion that alignment restrictions on base classes are inherently bad, outdated ideas, and the restrictions themselves are ultimately arbitrary based on one man's perception of what a class should be. That is my genuinely held opinion and there are certain members of this forum who have made it very clear, and some who have stated plainly, that they do not respect that opinion. And that is perfectly fine, they don't have t.
I should also be clear that I'm not here to attack anyone's preferences. Anyone who wants to play a lawful monk or a chaotic barbarian because they prefer doing so, that's perfectly fine and I respect that that is their preference.
My only questions are whether or not it makes the game objectively better that people can only play a monk or barbarian in the way you prefer(gross over simplification there as there are obviously many ways to play both classes even within the current confines); and if so, how?
And failing a definitive yes and satisfactory explanation as to why, I ask, does it actively harm the game that other individuals would be playing the class in ways that you don't personally prefer? And if so, why?
I've yet to get any satisfactory answers there. I've gotten personal preferences and baseless assertions. Meanwhile I see other people who's enjoyment of the game would increase without those restrictions.
So if it doesn't take away people's ability to play the game the way they enjoy playing it currently(lawful monks and non-lawful barbarians would still be a thing), and it doesn't mechanically make the game better to keep it, and it doesn't mechanically harm the game to take it away, and taking it away would allow others to enjoy the game more than they currently do, then what is the point of keeping it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To try to get this thread on track, I think the basic disconnect is that some people try to find meaning in mechanics, while some people find mechanics are standing in the way of what they want.
Personally I see "Monks are lawful" and think "what does that tell me about Monks". So I see it as "a monk learns their craft from a tutor, if not a monastery/temple, the class is about more than just being good at punching people, and so we're talking about a specific type of martial artist, not just any character you can find in a martial arts movie." Some of those other "good at punching" characters are better represented by Unarmed Fighters, Brawlers, the Martial Artist archetype for Monks, or Vigilantes.
I see "Barbarians are non-lawful" and think "what does that tell me about Barbarians" and I can see "Well, that probably means there's no Barbarian temple or formal training for Barbarians (further confirmed by Barbarians being in the "Intuitive" category for age.)"
Not every game is going to be able to support all kinds of character concepts, so I prefer to read the books to learn what sorts of things I can play, rather than just assuming I should be able to do whatever.
I use a similar but different methodology.
I look at a class, I think, "what does this class do", and then I think, "what kind of person would do the things this class does?"
And I like that methodology better because I think it allows people to come up with strikingly different character concepts based on the same information.
I remember during the ACG Playtest me and a friend took a look at the slayer class and came away with two very different concepts for what a slayer would be; she invisioned an extremely selfish, selfcentered, independent individual who didn't care about anything but themselves, and I invisioned a dedicated, devout individual who had fully invested themselves in a cause.
I think that removing the restrictions on alignment actively improves the game because it opens up and increases the number of character concepts that could exist. There will be someone who looks at what a monk does and has a drastically different interpretation of what kind of person would do those things than you will or I will, and they could create a fun and interesting character from that interpretation. You and I would most likely never see that character but I don't want to stifle that person because you or I or someone else might think that they're doing it wrong.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ so much this ^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...
Unarmed combat in the real world, and 'monk weapons' like the nunchaku and kama and tonfa, at least partially got it's cachet from the Okinawan farmers and peasants *defying the law* and learning to fight to resist their lawful overlords, who forbade them to have weapons (so that they couldn't effectively resist said lawful authority, which had all the armor, weapons and trained fighting-men).
That's just one example. The martial art of capoeira, popular in Brazil, at least partially includes a lot of kicking and acrobatic legwork, *because it was designed to be used by people whose arms were shackled.*
The real world is chock full of martial arts-y concepts that are all about *defying the law* and violently resisting lawful authorities.
It's easier to come up with a rationale that monks *can't* be lawful, if using the real world as a guideline. (And even that's a stretch, since there are examples of law-and-order-friendly martial arts, like the fighting techniques taught to police officers or soldiers, or the style of krav maga.)
Just to point out, capoeira doesn't do emphasis on focus, on qi/chi or on meditation. It is awesome on balanced, flowing circular attacks. It is surprisingly effective against weapons, including firearms at close range. They are pretty good at being hard to anticipate, and catching a heel that is whipped out of nowhere is, well, stunning. They are about fluidity and flexibility rather than strength, and get really pissy about the Ninjutsu boys that make mixed martial outs matches so darned boring. The ninjutsu boys holds are apparently harder to get away from. Attitude, focus and approach really do not match the Monk trope. Alcohol and weed were not off limits for them, but I have to say that they handled it well.
{. . .}
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.
Go watch the right episode of Babylon 5, and you'll see examples of the first 2 of these.
* * * * * * * *
As for a couple of specific examples of reasons to wish to be able to make non-Lawful (and even Chaotic) Monks and Lawful Barbarians:
Example 1: From 1st Edition AD&D lore, specifically the Fiend Folio: The Githzerai were Chaotic Neutral Humanoids -- even living in Limbo -- that nevertheless had Monks. (Note that you can't exactly have Githzerai in Pathfinder, because Githzerai are classified as WotC Product Identity, but this gives reason for inspiration, which has, however, so far not been developed.)
Example 2: Hellknights -- a well fleshed-out set of organizations in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting -- could certainly use shock troopers capable of Rage, provided that they could discipline them. The more ruthless Hellknight orders would have a strong incentive to brainwash captured Barbarians into expendable front-line raging warriors for their cause, and might find it well worthwhile to find ways to mold Barbarian Rage to the service of Law. (The recently released Geminate Invoker archetype allows Lawful Neutral alignment to coexist with its equivalent of Rage, but the flavor of this archetype doesn't fit a Hellknight Shock Trooper at all.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attitude, focus and approach really do not match the Monk trope. Alcohol and weed were not off limits for them, but I have to say that they handled it well.
I'm not sure how you can say this...
Drunken Monk: "Most monks lead lives of moderation and quiet contemplation. But the drunken master finds perfection through excess. Powered by strong wine, he uses his intoxication to reach a state where his ki is more potent, if somewhat fleeting."
The game at large accepts that a monk can ignore "moderation and quiet contemplation" and instead find "perfection through excess". the monk 'trope' has been made large enough to include this archetype, so it's a bit disingenuous to say it's all "focus, on qi/chi or on meditation" for the monk that has to live in an austere monastery from an ancient master.
If anything, the drunken master's focus on general debauchery makes it's retaining a lawful alignment a questionable choice IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright I didn't want to get back involved with this one the argument has been played out. Just want to clarify.
Home games. you can always just allow or don't allow different alignments especially for monk and barb. paladin does require some minor alterations to the class to fit the theme (spells mostly)
PFS now I can see why you guys would want the option available. Only way you can play it is if it becomes a standard rule etc. I don't see a problem with allowing the removal of alignment restrictions there is probably concepts out there that could justify those 2 classes as alternate alignments.
If they want em guys let em have it and just don't allow it in your games? Who does it hurt? if your pfs and you have to play with a non-lawful monk because its legal is it really gonna ruin your game play that much?
Alright just got that end before this one becomes locked.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright I didn't want to get back involved with this one the argument has been played out. Just want to clarify.
Home games. you can always just allow or don't allow different alignments especially for monk and barb. paladin does require some minor alterations to the class to fit the theme (spells mostly)
PFS now I can see why you guys would want the option available. Only way you can play it is if it becomes a standard rule etc. I don't see a problem with allowing the removal of alignment restrictions there is probably concepts out there that could justify those 2 classes as alternate alignments.
If they want em guys let em have it and just don't allow it in your games? Who does it hurt? if your pfs and you have to play with a non-lawful monk because its legal is it really gonna ruin your game play that much?
Alright just got that end before this one becomes locked.
You missed some of the options. For instance, I play online often with a new DM every game. I have to negotiate EACH and EVERY time I'd want to play a monk/barbarian with a non-standard alignment. That's a pain and it takes time and effort each time it has to be done.
Then there are DM that want to run as close to standard as possible for easiness. I often see 'official rules that are online' for what's allowable, so again it's extra time and effort EACH and EVERY time a character starts...
You look at this and then you look at what it's take to play a lawful monk or non-lawful barbarian if the game had NO restrictions and it's very clear which one serves the most people. It's not as easy as 'it's a home game so no worries...'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know the funny thing is I was on your side... I mean did you read the whole thing?
Example: If they want em guys let em have it and just don't allow it in your games. Who does it hurt? if your pfs and you have to play with a non-lawful monk because its legal is it really gonna ruin your game play that much?
This is exactly why I didn't want to post people are in such an argumentative mood that they will just start one over anything.
well later. you guys have fun talking past each other.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Vidmaster7, I'm sorry that you feel you weren't listened too. I think it is worthwhile for both sides to explain how having (or not having) alignment restrictions in official rules affects their play. For example, I used to be the kind of GM that would enforce the alignment restrictions not because of some conviction that they made the game better, but just because that was what the book said. Fortunately I was exposed to a really excellent counter-example at someone else's table. This encouraged me to be flexible and improved my gaming. Even if PFS kept the alignment restrictions I think taking them out of the CRB would make a lot of tables more alignment-inclusive.
You are correct that "setting neutral" is not quite accurate. In fact, I'd argue that it's not possible to make a truly setting neutral fantasy game system because there is no universal standard for how magic works.Ah, I see you've never played Word Mill's Mythic Role playing. It is a truly universal setting, and it is designed so that the setting can be generated on the fly during play if you want to (although you can also play with a pre-determined setting).
Could you explain how? I find it hard to believe that a system could equally balance magical effects that are limited by short-term fatigue accumulation, long-term sanity loss, availability of rare components, or martial arts skill - unless it's really rules-light? The link you sent mostly focuses on the GM-free aspect. This review talks up customizability and a "modular" aspect. Does the system simply include a number of different modules representing different magic systems, and you're supposed to pick one?
It's amazing how many of the Paizo.com arguments go away once that book is available.
Alignment arguments? How so?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know the funny thing is I was on your side... I mean did you read the whole thing?
Example: If they want em guys let em have it and just don't allow it in your games. Who does it hurt? if your pfs and you have to play with a non-lawful monk because its legal is it really gonna ruin your game play that much?
This is exactly why I didn't want to post people are in such an argumentative mood that they will just start one over anything.
well later. you guys have fun talking past each other.
From what you wrote, it seemed to say that in a home game you can house-rule whatever alignment you want so it's not an issue. I was pointing out that the traditional home-game where you can easily get a house-ruling and PFS weren't the only two ways of playing and how 'you can house-rule it' isn't a very satisfying answer to removing a restriction.
If you are agreeing with me... Cool. I didn't look at the PFS stuff as I don't play it, so I looked at the home game section. The home game section was about allowing/disallowing alignments as a house-rule. I didn't see the "I don't see a problem with allowing the removal of alignment restrictions" from the PFS section as I jumped over it.
So, not so much an "argumentative mood" as skipping over things I didn't think applied to me. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a matter of personal preference. I enjoy Alignment and having restrictions; it's why I like Pathfinder. I've had to make hard choices when making characters and I personally don't mind that. For example when I'm feeling a Divine Champion I tend to go towards Paladin, unless I want a champion of Desna then I end up using Warpriest.Some people don't like that and that's cool. I'm just comfortable working with certain boundaries.
I think you'll find the vast majority of people playing pathfinder are fine with restrictions, if every character could do everything there would be no fun, no-one would be distinctly good at anything.
The thing people rail against is when they see a restriction that they don't feel is mechanical, but rather a restriction on how their character can behave or what kind of character they can make.
Many many people feel that the game should provide the mechanics and setting sometimes the story but not everyone uses golorian or APs. So really the only standard is mechanics, people will often feel it is them that provide the character. When the game starts telling them how their character is allowed to behave. That's when people have an issue.
Especially when those same people lose nothing from letting said character behave as the player intended. Then it just reads as no you can't do that because I don't like that idea of fantasy.
Restrictions aren't the issue, it's that characterisation is the thing being restricted, not mechanics. You don't see threads cropping up complaining that inquisitors aren't full BAB or that wizards can't wear plate. Because those things are mechanical. The things people complain about are usually things like alignment restriction. Because they're telling people Who there character is, not what they can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ so much this ^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...
Unarmed combat in the real world, and 'monk weapons' like the nunchaku and kama and tonfa, at least partially got it's cachet from the Okinawan farmers and peasants *defying the law* and learning to fight to resist their lawful overlords, who forbade them to have weapons (so that they couldn't effectively resist said lawful authority, which had all the armor, weapons and trained fighting-men).
That's just one example. The martial art of capoeira, popular in Brazil, at least partially includes a lot of kicking and acrobatic legwork, *because it was designed to be used by people whose arms were shackled.*
The real world is chock full of martial arts-y concepts that are all about *defying the law* and violently resisting lawful authorities.
It's easier to come up with a rationale that monks *can't* be lawful, if using the real world as a guideline. (And even that's a stretch, since there are examples of law-and-order-friendly martial arts, like the fighting techniques taught to police officers or soldiers, or the style of krav maga.)
Just going to drop the PF equivalent of caporeia:
Janni Style: This style, originating humbly from the folk traditions of disparate peoples, represents several similar unarmed fighting arts practiced around the world. Regardless of variations in technique, all practitioners have a fluid fighting stance that emphasizes rapid, powerful kicks. The style's constant motion and graceful footwork lead many to mistakenly view practitioners as highly skilled dancers, a misconception that has allowed the technique to be taught in secret, the hidden weapon of the downtrodden and the oppressed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Restrictions aren't the issue, it's that characterisation is the thing being restricted, not mechanics.
Well since Alignment is a mechanical aspect of Pathfinder I'd disagree.
Alignment is the same mechanically as Base Attack Bonus. It's a part of the games ruleset, so for me it is the same as asking to remove any other restriction within the ruleset.
If people really don't like Alignment they should just use house rules or maybe just realize another rpg might serve thier purposes better. Like 5e, Fate, or other games that don't use alignment.
Arguing to remove alignment rules from Pathfinder makes about as much sense to me as arguing to add alignment rules to a game without them.
Some people enjoy Alignment and the restrictions on classes or prestige classes. It's why they use Pathfinder.
Graystone,
I am concerned that having to negotiate your character concept with the GM is such a big thing with you. In every decent campaign I have played in, and every campaign I have run, character concepts are negotiated. In the best games, concepts are generally negotiated with the GM and the other players. This helps to weed out the out of place and disruptive concepts. Since the Society is a different model, and table negotiation is limited, the rules themselves have to be most of the negotiation. This is one of the big reasons I don't play Society stuff, and I would certainly never GM it. The first time a player came in with a wildly inappropriate character, and demanded acceptance because it was legal because of these boons and ......., would be the last. Now, because all these "negotiations" must be made at the design level, you can only deal with what you have thought out beforehand, so you can't deal with the oddling concepts that would actually work well this time. Nature of the Beast and all, I see its value for society play, it just doesn't suit me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I just saw the Matrix for the first time and I'm super excited about it. Can I play Neo in your new 1st level Burnt Offerings game? Specifically I want to play a computer hacker who wears a black pleather trench coat and wrap around shades, flys, stops bullets with pure will, is a master of kung-fu, and can rewrite reality on the fly. Cool?
I would remind you that restrictions on what characters I can play are "non-inclusive", "selfish", violations of the "golden rule", "naive", "deep internalization" of poorly understood historical accidents, evince "blind trust", "zero-sum", and otherwise generally immoral. Also, maybe not readily distinguishable from white only neighborhoods?
The above is an exaggeration but only a little.
Restrictions on what does and doesn't appear in a setting is what makes something a setting. A world in which people are metaphysically tied to the forces of Chaos and Order is an old fantasy trope, if you don't like it you can skip it, but people liking it and Paizo publishing it isn't a moral failing.
So, trying to relate your exaggeration to what is *actually* being argued--let's assume that the rules have, in fact, all the mechanics you would possibly need to play Neo in one place, but requires the character to be an authoritarian when by your interpretation, free will is a massively important theme to the character. Would you be satisfied being told to use other mechanics that do some of the same things, but not all, just to be allowed to have the character personality you want?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Daw, I agree that negotiation is not a bad thing. I do it a ton. My current lawful barbarian took a lot of discussion with the GM to hash out an appropriate background - and I ended up relying on the GM's suggestion for the character's race. As a GM I have for example asked a player to play a dhampir cleric over a sylph wizard because the latter didn't fit the campaign world.
However if you're starting a negotiation from the assumption that a concept is not allowed, it makes it harder. You feel like you're asking for a favour, not collaborating on a character.
Well since Alignment is a mechanical aspect of Pathfinder I'd disagree.
Alignment is the same mechanically as Base Attack Bonus. It's a part of the games ruleset, so for me it is the same as asking to remove any other restriction within the ruleset.
An alignment restriction having mechanical effects is not the same thing as that same restriction existing for mechanical reasons.
An inquisitor has partial BAB because full BAB would be unbalanced and overpowered.
A nonlawful monk would be subject to a different set of alignment-based mechanical effects, but overall there's no mechanical benefit to being lawful vs being chaotic, and the decision to restrict them to a lawful alignment instead of any other alignment (eg Chaotic-only) is thematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a matter of personal preference. I enjoy Alignment and having restrictions; it's why I like Pathfinder. I've had to make hard choices when making characters and I personally don't mind that. For example when I'm feeling a Divine Champion I tend to go towards Paladin, unless I want a champion of Desna then I end up using Warpriest.Some people don't like that and that's cool. I'm just comfortable working with certain boundaries.
I think you'll find the vast majority of people playing pathfinder are fine with restrictions, if every character could do everything there would be no fun, no-one would be distinctly good at anything.
The thing people rail against is when they see a restriction that they don't feel is mechanical, but rather a restriction on how their character can behave or what kind of character they can make.
Speaking for myself, I do have objections to certain mechanical restrictions. The difference between those I object to and the false equivalencies that BiaJ has thrown around is whether a restriction is needful and consistent. Sometimes this even leads me to the opinion that more restrictions are necessary, despite popular opposing opinion.
Just as importantly, the difference between alignment restrictions and BiaJ's false equivalencies is that the latter are positive, while the former are negative. I.e., in order to allow players to play aboleths or Neo, a dev team needs to make a positive effort -- they have to write PC rules for those things. (No, you can't play aboleths as-is for good balance reasons.) Allowing players to play their own characters as they see fit requires a negative effort -- just don't add alignment restrictions to the ruleset.
TBH, I dislike "certain races have penalties to certain attributes" much more than I dislike "certain options are limited to certain alignments, races, religions, etc." especially in terms of what I feel to be limiting in terms of what characters I would want to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone,
I am concerned that having to negotiate your character concept with the GM is such a big thing with you.
No, you're looking at it wrong. EVERY character is a negotiation of some sort but I would rather not start out in a disadvantageous position from the get go. If a character conforms to the 'standard' of the game it's a quick and easy thing but when it doesn't it's not. I'm against things that actively make that negotiation harder for what I see as limited to no benefit to anyone.
In every decent campaign I have played in, and every campaign I have run, character concepts are negotiated.
True to an extent. Sometime the negotiation are as simple as 'here is the character' and the DM saying 'everything looks legal: ok!'. It's a much different scenario than 'mother may I' house-rule your game.
In the best games, concepts are generally negotiated with the GM and the other players.
But that process doesn't have to be painful or drawn out. A legal option takes much less time and is often seen in a MUCH better light than one that steps outside the rules.
This helps to weed out the out of place and disruptive concepts.
Unless it's something like no tech/guns, I've rarely ever seen an issue with 'out of place' concepts. With the right backstory, it's hard to not find a place in most games.
As to disruptive concepts, I find it's mostly disruptive PLAYERS not concepts.
Since the Society is a different model, and table negotiation is limited, the rules themselves have to be most of the negotiation. This is one of the big reasons I don't play Society stuff, and I would certainly never GM it.
I'm with you on this.
The first time a player came in with a wildly inappropriate character, and demanded acceptance because it was legal because of these boons and ......., would be the last.
And you lost me again. It's one thing to go against a basic premise of a game, like no guns, but it's another to write off a character because it's improbable. Someone wants a merfolk in a desert adventure, I'm thinking 'this should be an interesting story' not 'I've got to kick this guy out of the group'.
Nature of the Beast and all, I see its value for society play, it just doesn't suit me.
LOL Again, I agree. Boil me in oil before I play a PFS game. I understand the reasoning and the appeal but it goes against what makes the game fun for me.
TBH, I dislike "certain races have penalties to certain attributes" much more than I dislike "certain options are limited to certain alignments, races, religions, etc." especially in terms of what I feel to be limiting in terms of what characters I would want to play.
While I too dislike "certain races have penalties to certain attributes", I can understand and accept them. Some races are just better/worse when compared to the 'average': If we accept that an elf has +2 dex, it's hard to get mad at them losing 2 con too. And it's even explained in the Race book: if you wished, you can easily adjust the RP of every race to remove those penalties if you wished.
My dislike for "certain options are limited to certain alignments, races, religions, etc" is the arbitrariness. There's nothing required or implied but it's done anyway.
Why have a mundane feat [non-SU/SLA] locked behind a deity?
Why is a class locked behind an alignment, when ALL of it's abilities are available to characters without that alignment?
Why have a trait locked behind a race when you can get the EXACT mechanical benefit without being that race?
Those questions are fundamentally different than attributes, where the question isn't why is there a penalty AT ALL [the race gets one because of how it spent RP], but an issue of why a required penalty was taken to a certain stat. One's was required and the other isn't.