|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a strange idea - when a DM says their game is using the official RAW, either play a character that fulfils those criteria, or don't apply to join their game. Don't try and "special snowflake" your way around things.
And this is why "just houserule it" is not a solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a strange idea - when a DM says their game is using the official RAW, either play a character that fulfils those criteria, or don't apply to join their game. Don't try and "special snowflake" your way around things.And this is why "just houserule it" is not a solution.
It's almost like he made my point for me...
dysartes: I'd rather play using "the official RAW". When I ask 'why do these classes need to be these alignments?', peoples FIRST and STRONGEST refrain 'it's not an issue because you can house-rule it'. You illustrate the exact issue with that stance as some will see any alteration of the rules as trying to make a "special snowflake". My stance is 'why does a L barbarian or C monk NEED to be a "special snowflake"'?: I can't see a reason for it past "sacred cow"... There sure isn't a mechanical reason for it [or a compelling RP reason either IMO] .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I know the feeling. Whether we're talking gay marriage or healthcare, or whether we're tempted to Godwin or talk about Antebellum slavery or the right to vote, the fact is that alignment restrictions are not comparable to anything good in human history. It's considered tasteless to compare the inclusion of alignment restrictions to the truly evil things in human history. And where it comes to degree and scale, I agree. Philosophical differences over a game do not compare to the true horrors of just how wicked we can be to each other in the ways that truly count, where lives and livelihoods really are at stake.
That said, it's also tasteless because there's nothing tasteful humanity has done that alignment restrictions compare to, no proud moments where you read them in a history book and feel like the human race actually is worth a damn that alignment can be likened to.
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.
Why does the fact that the game started with those unfair and oppressive restrictions matter? The issue isn't when they were introduced, it's whether they're still there. I mean, are you seriously arguing that stealing is wrong, but coming into something stolen (that you know is stolen) and not returning it is fine? Because that is what I'm equivocating it with. If introducing a no-Gnomes restriction is wrong, leaving a no-not-lawful-Monks restriction that already does exist is just as wrong.
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.
No, it starts off by flipping it. What happens then is that once the players who thought they were now being saddled with a burden figure out that no, they actually aren't, then it's problem solved. If what you're saying was true, then it would be true in the case of the humans-only restriction for the Paladin that isn't there now, right? But that's not the case. Players who liked humans-only Paladins can still play humans-only Paladins. It's just that now, they have to tolerate the preferences of other players (such a Herculean burden, that) or take responsibility for re-imposing those restrictions in their own game.
So let's test this. They took away "Alignment: Any non-lawful" from the Bard. According to you, that shifted the problem onto the other group. Did it, though? Are the players that wanted not-lawful Bards even slightly inconvenienced? Okay, so why would it be any different for the other classes?
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.
The only thing insulting is what I'm comparing the imposition of alignment restrictions to, and as I've said above, that's because there's nothing not-insulting to compare it to. As for attacks, that's not me attacking, that's me being tired of being attacked and re-attacked and responding accordingly. As for the thread being closed, well, it's only to be expected. One side is defending themselves against unfair oppression because they have this crazy notion that they are as worthy of respect as everyone else and they insist on not just settling for still being oppressed and the other side insists on advocating for the continued presence of said oppression.
I promise on my life I'll stop with the so-called insults and attacks when they stop being apt.
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.
Okay, so why continue to advocate for the Monk to still have alignment restrictions when you not only acknowledge the validity of the not-lawful Monk but have come up with a method of implementing it in-game? Doesn't the suggestion of this change implement that "flip" you were talking about above, even if only in the context of that one group? If it's permissible to do so here (and you suggested it, so you must think so), why not game-wide?
God, I love alignment so much.... even more so because of the white-hot outrage it seems to generate.
Well, yes, morally reprehensible things tend to inspire outrage. Was this in doubt? Are the downtrodden expected to roll over and thank the boots that step on them? Is that the shining example of humanity's best that we're supposed to emulate?
Here's a strange idea - when a DM says their game is using the official RAW, either play a character that fulfils those criteria, or don't apply to join their game. Don't try and "special snowflake" your way around things.And this is why "just houserule it" is not a solution.It's almost like he made my point for me...
dysartes: I'd rather play using "the official RAW". When I ask 'why do these classes need to be these alignments?', peoples FIRST and STRONGEST refrain 'it's not an issue because you can house-rule it'. You illustrate the exact issue with that stance as some will see any alteration of the rules as trying to make a "special snowflake". My stance is 'why does a L barbarian or C monk NEED to be a "special snowflake"'?: I can't see a reason for it past "sacred cow"... There sure isn't a mechanical reason for it [or a compelling RP reason either IMO] .
Exactly. They're no more a special snowflake than a player wanting to play Bob the human Fighter or Hoppington the halfling Rogue or Delanna the Elf Paladin. The only reason those players aren't special snowflakes is because they don't have to raise this kind of fuss to play what they want to play. By pure coincidence, what the game restricts just so happens to not negatively impact them. If it did and they felt they were asking for no more than the same consideration as everyone else at the table, then they would be special snowflakes, too. Pure arbitrary chance.
Okay, let me throw in another specific example of why non-Lawful Monks (in particular, Tetori Monks) should be allowed . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that was a low blow ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that was a low blow ;)
At least the tetori hopes so.
]because generally they lead to debates, debating is political, there for they are political, as are most things.
That's just patently untrue though. Debating is simply arguing opposing sides of an issue in a public forum. For example, court cases are debates. Hell, if one were to go to any number of fansites, you could find all sorts of debates over any number of issues, from Kirk v. Picard, to whether or not Pokemon battling is cruel and abusive. So to say that an alignment debate is political because it's a debate is patently false.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
