| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
hamper player creativity, my foot, if they can't play with a little strictures, they have no creativity to begin with... I grant that gods from non LG alignments might like their paladin equivalents, but real paladins still are LG and nothing else, and if they can't catch that monkish discipline translates as a lawful alignment and barbaric lack of same as non L, I'm not sure they even get the use of alignment (which, it can be argued, is an institution of dubious value, but if we're discussing alignment restrictions, we're not discussing doing away with alignments altogether).
Active till just yesterday.didn't show up in my 1st couple pages search but cant post anything to it even with the link
It's like the 13th item on the first page under Pathfinder RPG General Discussion.
You can't post because it's a locked thread. But it'll have all your answers in there.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very very short overview on my opinions:
1: Alignment as a role-playing tool is a-okay with me.
2: Alignment, as a gating mechanism for classes is less then desirable game design, unless a very very good case is made for the restrictions. (in other words -> in base classes its a no no, in prestige classes there might be room for it).
real paladins fight for an ideal or a god and the only restriction to alignment is that of the god or ideal weather that be LG,CE,NN doesn't matter. you can have discipline within chaos or be lawful without discipline i can have a chaotic character one who believes in freedom and self discipline or a character who is lawful who has no attention span... What?? Since when are real paladins not LG? Of courese they are.. and yes lawful means disciplene and chaotic means undisciplned.. that's what they've always meant because that's what the alignment restrictions and leanings have always said. If you want to make alignment mean different things in your campaign that's fine, but as they come yes that's what they mean.hamper player creativity, my foot, if they can't play with a little strictures, they have no creativity to begin with... I grant that gods from non LG alignments might like their paladin equivalents, but real paladins still are LG and nothing else, and if they can't catch that monkish discipline translates as a lawful alignment and barbaric lack of same as non L, I'm not sure they even get the use of alignment (which, it can be argued, is an institution of dubious value, but if we're discussing alignment restrictions, we're not discussing doing away with alignments altogether).but it really doesn't, real paladins aren't lawful good, discipline doesn't come from being lawful and neither does anger mean chaotic
or as I like to call them 'not actually a paladin'.
Sure any deity can sponsor a holy warrior, and any one can fight for a cause.Doesn't make them a paladin.
Don't mind me I'm just going to get a handful of marshmallows for this thread's pending immolation.
....
Okay fine, I'll also try and have a productive statement too.
Pathfinder isn't a generic fantasy simulator. Races, classes, and similar are presumed to carry varying levels of flavor implicitly. Some (like a fighter or rogue) are easy to refluff and retrofit while others like paladins and druids far less so. You can have beefs with that, but it's not an issue of game design, and more in the realm of world design. Pathfinder isn't meant to (nor should if you ask me) cater to every single corner character concept that could tangentially be linked to any given class chassis.
You might be right, you also might be wrong. If you want to argue, that creating a comprehensible lore and world gives rise to certain classes, feats and abilities, no problem there. That those classes, feats and abilities have requirements are less of a question lore design, then its a question of mechanical game design. Now there will be points where they meet, and unfortunately Alignment seem to be one of them. Just see all the discussions around Alignment descriptors and Alignment requirements.
If you want that sort of modularity, you picked the wrong game frankly (and would be much better off with a GURPS or similar derivative). Otherwise the whole "Why can't I have a CG druid who wants to make Corescant!" goes in the same book as a guy playing Dark Heresy demanding why he can't have a male Sororita who worships Khorne. That's just not how the overall world design went and unless I (as GM) explicitly excised all that flavor, he can find a new concept.
?
A druid who view manufactured life as natural sounds interesting. Heretical and foreign to most druids, but interesting - could be archetype worthy or maybe a presstige class...
A male Sororita? Okay I have difficulty seeing that one, but if someone wanted to make that, I could probably bash something together by comparing the Sororita, Cleric and Frateris Militia in about 30min to an hour. My cross question would then be what about trans-people? Not mentioned anywhere that I know of, so can or can't a trans-person be a Sororita? (I would say yes, during 40000+ years no male/trans-person/whatever was a Sororita? yea right...)
A Sororita that worships Khorne* is possible and quite easy to make. Have her be a member of a heretical group of sisters, that was mostly destroyed by the Ecclesiarchy. She fled and found protection under a radical inquisitor, who fights a guerilla war against the forces of chaos on the fringes of the Imperium.
* Here I view worship as a way to get power, not a "Pathfinder" concept of worship, where you are wedded to your "God/Godess" in body and soul. Think of her as a Oblationist.
Well, the retread thread dived fast, here is my thought.
Ridicule and Rancor is not fun, nor is it helpful. Nor should it be the Core Curriculum for the Forums.
Now I would have the base state of any mortal be unaligned, and alignments be chosen like domains, with benefits and deficits gained. I would also allow alignments to concepts other than the classic 4. Advantage to this is you can define the Concepts a lot better.
Allignment isn't personality anymore, it is a form of Devotion.
If this is now the case, alignment restrictions start to make more sense.
It makes my heart soar to see another guy who actually gets my rambling DH references. That said here's my general thoughts on the 40k side of things (because its fun). Trans is probably a can of worms that can't really be answered since who knows what the Ecclesiarchical stance on trans folk on in regard to exploiting loopholes of having no standing army of MEN at arms (my gut would go to whatever your current plumbing is so trans-woman okay, trans-man, no). As for the heretical sect, the problem with that unlike that one package that renders her a sorta-witch with Soul Sight, Khorne is heresy. There's no chance in hell you'd get Pure Faith or Faith Powers if you're worshiping the Ruinous Powers, even if you are deluded and ignorant and to see the point of Oblationism as a Sororita would require far more CP and IP than you could start with at creation and...
?A druid who view manufactured life as natural sounds interesting. Heretical and foreign to most druids, but interesting - could be archetype worthy or maybe a presstige class...
A male Sororita? Okay I have difficulty seeing that one, but if someone wanted to make that, I could probably bash something together by comparing the Sororita, Cleric and Frateris Militia in about 30min to an hour. My cross question would then be what about trans-people? Not mentioned anywhere that I know of, so can or can't a trans-person be a Sororita? (I would say yes, during 40000+ years no male/trans-person/whatever was a Sororita? yea right...)
A Sororita that worships Khorne* is possible and quite easy to make. Have her be a member of a heretical group of sisters, that was mostly destroyed by the Ecclesiarchy. She fled and found protection under a radical inquisitor, who fights a guerilla war against the forces of chaos on the fringes of the Imperium.
* Here I view worship as a way to get power, not a "Pathfinder" concept of worship, where you are wedded to your "God/Godess" in body and soul. Think of her as a Oblationist.
^^
I meant nothing controversial, nor did I want to make it some kind test by bringing up trans-people. I was more a musing on the fact, that things that aren't precisely hammered out in the lore should be up the individual GM.
As a mangler of systems and breaker of lore, I don't give very much for the intentions of Lore, Systems or whatever if my group finds it more enjoyable to change things.
Heck I have my own re-write of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Death Watch that's bordering a 100 pages by now ^^'. It was created a project to bring the three games more in line and make things a bit more stream-lined and power-compatible all three games over.
Pretty much why I said that I could bash something together. Things like Pure faith and faith power could easily be re-flavoured to work with chaos a "power source". The whole point of radicalism is taking the "greater good" to its final conclusion, thus such a things as oblationism is ultimately a act of "corrupted" martyrdom. You sacrifice all that is dear to you to combat the enemy, willfully giving up the pretense of humanity, faith or decency to destroy your enemies.
Such a sacrifice is very much in line with the overall flavour of 40K universe, where there any redemption, hope or victory is a fleeting temporary thing.
As for the Cp and Ip? that kind of comes with the territory, when your on the sliding scale of Radicalism vs Puritanism...
Thought of the day: Your daily work brings you closer and closer to the warp, increases your understanding of orderless powers. Gradually, without noticing it, even the most puritanical and rod-stiff inquisitor becomes seduced... The first step is the knowledge. An inquisitor must understand the basic traits of Chaos in order to fight it. In a few years, he knows more about the warp than most untutored cultists. Then the second step: the moment he breaks the rules and allows some aspect of Chaos to survive or remain so that he can study it and learn from it... The third step... the third step is the line itself. When the inquisitor becomes a radical. When he chooses to use Chaos against Chaos. When he employs the agencies of the warp. When he asks the heretical for help... So... are you going to ask me to help you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counting down to the cries of 'fascism' and 'oppression'....
On the point of whether a game system's rules should actively constrain PC behavior, rewarding one action while punishing another: emphatically, YES. And plenty of them do. 7th Sea, for example, gives drama dice and XP based solely on whether your actions are heroic--not practical, not powerful, not even successful... heroic. Marvel Superheroes does the same with its Karma/XP system: it doesn't matter if you win a fight. Your character can't advance until he does something actively good--upholding justice, saving lives, standing up to evil.
Werewolf (The Apocalypse) required not just combat ability, but demonstrations of honor and wisdom in order to gain rank. It didn't matter if you wanted to play a philodox who "doesn't care about honor"--if you try to skip that RP requirement, you're stuck as a low-ranking cub. Even Mage the Ascension had rules for playing a Technocrat (the bad guys), along with harsher restrictions on their powers, limited growth options, and much bigger penalties for failure and accidents.
A player who wants to run a selfish, 'genre-breaking,' or shades-of-gray character in such a system is at a serious disadvantage. You can create and play such a character, sure... but you'll have a harder time and miss out on a lot of rewards and advantages that more virtuous PCs enjoy. The choice is there, but the system includes consequences for those choices. And it's no coincidence that I love systems like that.
Problem is Pathfinder (or pretty much any variant of DnD), doesn't function that way (except maybe for paladin). The only thing that would change if you removed the alignment restriction from classes is - you wouldn't have alignment restrictions (ta-dah). Even paladin would stay the same 'cause guess what - his code makes it he must be LG in deed rather than just a scribble on the top of the sheet.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is Pathfinder (or pretty much any variant of DnD), doesn't function that way (except maybe for paladin). The only thing that would change if you removed the alignment restriction from classes is - you wouldn't have alignment restrictions (ta-dah). Even paladin would stay the same 'cause guess what - his code makes it he must be LG in deed rather than just a scribble on the top of the sheet.
I think you've just found the key difference between those who like alignment restrictions and those who don't. To me, this IS how the game works. I often choose a character's alignment even before I choose their race. It's just that much a part of every character, and I believe that the-thing-alignment-is-an-abstraction-for is that much a part of people in real life. Every alignment restriction removed weakens alignment as a concept, and to me, that worsens the game.
Just for context, I require all PCs to be of good alignment in any game I run (except for PFS, where that isn't allowed.) I don't allow any PC to learn or use any evil spell. One evil act means turn in your character sheet, you're done. I actually add alignment restrictions (for example, no rogue is allowed to be lawful). I believe that much of the richness of the game comes from the significance of alignment.
Problem is Pathfinder (or pretty much any variant of DnD), doesn't function that way (except maybe for paladin). The only thing that would change if you removed the alignment restriction from classes is - you wouldn't have alignment restrictions (ta-dah). Even paladin would stay the same 'cause guess what - his code makes it he must be LG in deed rather than just a scribble on the top of the sheet.I think you've just found the key difference between those who like alignment restrictions and those who don't. To me, this IS how the game works. I often choose a character's alignment even before I choose their race. It's just that much a part of every character, and I believe that the-thing-alignment-is-an-abstraction-for is that much a part of people in real life. Every alignment restriction removed weakens alignment as a concept, and to me, that worsens the game.
Just for context, I require all PCs to be of good alignment in any game I run (except for PFS, where that isn't allowed.) I don't allow any PC to learn or use any evil spell. One evil act means turn in your character sheet, you're done. I actually add alignment restrictions (for example, no rogue is allowed to be lawful). I believe that much of the richness of the game comes from the significance of alignment.
Yes, GM like you are exact reason many people don't like alignment. I don't mean as an insult, just as a fact. When I'm starting with a new GM, you are exactly the kind of person I don't want to get. I mean, I want to play MY character, and I don't use the line as an excuse to be an a-hole, your house rule is legitimately stifling creativity and roleplaying.
The problem I have with barbarian/monk restrictions is that Law/Chaos axis is very badly defined (as someone said in one of the previous threads, your character could be described with both chaotic and lawful definition in CRB and there would be nothing contrary in his actions). I have no problem with paladin restrictions whatsoever (although I do use somewhat broader definition of paladin tenets). If I would play strict alignment it would have to be a special setting (like Planescape where it is defining to the setting itself) and a very good GM (the one that doesn't send people away with one evil act, say casting detect good to find a good outsider).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a sequel to one that was complaining about alignment restrictions for barbarians and monks... so yes, Pathfinder DOES work that way. And all prior version of D&D have too, some even more so. Earlier editions have required that druids be True Neutral, cavaliers lawful, and rangers good, for example. And of course, assassins must still be evil.
Problem is Pathfinder (or pretty much any variant of DnD), doesn't function that way (except maybe for paladin). The only thing that would change if you removed the alignment restriction from classes is - you wouldn't have alignment restrictions (ta-dah). Even paladin would stay the same 'cause guess what - his code makes it he must be LG in deed rather than just a scribble on the top of the sheet.
You miss my point. There is no mechanic that rewards/punishes characters other than having the alignment restriction itself. Alignment isn't tied to a d20 roll as Karma/drama dice are to the basic mechanics of the game. Alignment is pretty self-contained, comparing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Heroes" and "One evil act" are not even remotely exclusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may want to play your character but you're still playing with other people in the GM's game, and the GM asking for everyone to play heroes is neither being a%@&$&# nor stifling creativity.
My point was, no I'm not playing a game where one casting of Detect Good to find a good celestial, or an act of rage because your family got murdered by an army so you execute PoWs kicks your character out of the game. And I didn't call anyone an a-hole, just said it wasn't me being one for not abiding by a stifling rule (which by definition it is, I didn't say that people cannot agree beforehand or that it is objectively a bad rule. But objectively stifling it is).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
" no I'm not playing a game where one casting of Detect Good to find a good celestial"
Huh?
" or an act of rage because your family got murdered by an army so you execute PoWs kicks your character out of the game"
If the GM said upfront that they only wanted Good characters then I wouldn't blame them if they kicked you out if you did that. "My family was murdered by some people so I murdered some other people who may or may not know the people who killed my family just to vent" is Evil, and definitely not something a Good person would do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You miss my point. There is no mechanic that rewards/punishes characters other than having the alignment restriction itself. Alignment isn't tied to a d20 roll as Karma/drama dice are to the basic mechanics of the game. Alignment is pretty self-contained, comparing.
There are plenty of mechanics that affect (rewards/punishes) characters of certain alignments. Holy Word, Forbiddance, Chaos Hammer, Smite Evil, etc.
A character who maintains a Neutral alignment on an is rewarded when they take less effect from certain types of spells/abilities.
For example a group is entering an evil temple warded by a Forbiddance keyed to being Chaotic Evil. The Lawful Good character is taking 12d6 damage while the Chaotic Neutral character is taking 6d6 from the spell.
Or Spells such as Hallow/Unhallow that can be used to reward or punish characters of certain alignments, or Glyphs of Warding.
Then you have spells that actually get better if you match the Alignment like Righteous Blood.
Alignment is definitely more than just a scribble on your sheet. It also dictates mechanics.
the problem is that the mechanics affect the label, they don't reward or punish for playing the label properly or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
" no I'm not playing a game where one casting of Detect Good to find a good celestial"
Huh?
Yeah, forgot that detect alignment spells are unaligned, but protection from good used against good outsider because you don't have faith in outsiders is another good example.
" or an act of rage because your family got murdered by an army so you execute PoWs kicks your character out of the game"
If the GM said upfront that they only wanted Good characters then I wouldn't blame them if they kicked you out if you did that. "My family was murdered by some people so I murdered some other people who may or may not know the people who killed my family just to vent" is Evil, and definitely not something a Good person would do.
It's an act real persons did, and an act a realistic character could do. This isn't the platform to debate real world killings of PoW, so I'm gonna leave it at that. My point was even a normally good person can make an evil act if sufficiently provoked. I used a most extreme example, but the fact is I have no interest to playing a game where all characters are just goody-goody.
I actually don't understand why are you debating me Rysky, I'm debating my preferences with other people's preferences, you just seem hung up on being contrary to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You miss my point. There is no mechanic that rewards/punishes characters other than having the alignment restriction itself. Alignment isn't tied to a d20 roll as Karma/drama dice are to the basic mechanics of the game. Alignment is pretty self-contained, comparing.There are plenty of mechanics that affect (rewards/punishes) characters of certain alignments. Holy Word, Forbiddance, Chaos Hammer, Smite Evil, etc.
A character who maintains a Neutral alignment on an is rewarded when they take less effect from certain types of spells/abilities.
For example a group is entering an evil temple warded by a Forbiddance keyed to being Chaotic Evil. The Lawful Good character is taking 12d6 damage while the Chaotic Neutral character is taking 6d6 from the spell.
Or Spells such as Hallow/Unhallow that can be used to reward or punish characters of certain alignments, or Glyphs of Warding.
Then you have spells that actually get better if you match the Alignment like Righteous Blood.
Alignment is definitely more than just a scribble on your sheet. It also dictates mechanics.
Yes, but still not on the level of tying it to a d20 roll. Anyway, debate was removing alignment restrictions, which if you remove them have no effect other than barbarian and monk can be more free with alignments they choose (like say, bard is now comparing it to 3,x dnd and bloodrager and other raging classes including VMC barbarian).
the problem is that the mechanics affect the label, they don't reward or punish for playing the label properly or not.
Yes. But if you don't play the alignment properly you will eventually stop being that alignment.
|
|
"Yeah, forgot that detect alignment spells are unaligned, but protection from good used against good outsider because you don't have faith in outsiders is another good example."
Casting Protection from Good because you don't trust the creature made of Good is on you, sorry.
"It's an act real persons did, and an act a realistic character could do."
That doesn't make it Good.
"My point was even a normally good person can make an evil act if sufficiently provoked."
Can. Not will.
"but the fact is I have no interest to playing a game where all characters are just goody-goody."
And that's fine.
"I actually don't understand why are you debating me Rysky,"
Cause you're response to the other poster was kinda insulting rather than simply saying you don't care for their rules, and then tried to make an argument for your "Good" character to murder prisoners just so they could vent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Yeah, forgot that detect alignment spells are unaligned, but protection from good used against good outsider because you don't have faith in outsiders is another good example."
Casting Protection from Good because you don't trust the creature made of Good is on you.
"It's an act real persons did, and an act a realistic character could do."
That doesn't make it Good.
"My point was even a normally good person can make an evil act if sufficiently provoked."
Can. Not will.
" but the fact is I have no interest to playing a game where all characters are just goody-goody."
And that's fine.
"I actually don't understand why are you debating me Rysky,"
Cause you insulted the other poster rather than simply saying you don't care for their rules, and then tried to make an argument for your "Good" character to murder prisoners just so they could vent.
Again, point is not that killing people is evil, but that good people can do evil things. A point which you seem to be missing.
Insult? You mean there where I said people (like me and other people I know) don't like to play with alignment because people (like Redelia)treat as an excuse to make you characters do what they want them to do, instead what I want to do with my character. And said I don't mean as an insult? You do get that not playing in somebody's game is not an insult? And my other posts clearly state it's my preference and I wouldn't play in a game like that?
|
|
"Yeah, forgot that detect alignment spells are unaligned, but protection from good used against good outsider because you don't have faith in outsiders is another good example."
Casting Protection from Good because you don't trust the creature made of Good is on you.
"It's an act real persons did, and an act a realistic character could do."
That doesn't make it Good.
"My point was even a normally good person can make an evil act if sufficiently provoked."
Can. Not will.
" but the fact is I have no interest to playing a game where all characters are just goody-goody."
And that's fine.
"I actually don't understand why are you debating me Rysky,"
Cause you insulted the other poster rather than simply saying you don't care for their rules, and then tried to make an argument for your "Good" character to murder prisoners just so they could vent.
Again, point is not that killing people is evil, but that good people can do evil things. A point which you seem to be missing.
Insult? You mean there where I said people (like me and other people I know) don't like to play with alignment because people (like Redelia)treat as an excuse to make you characters do what they want them to do, instead what I want to do with my character. And said I don't mean as an insult? You do get that not playing in somebody's game is not an insult? And my other posts clearly state it's my preference and I wouldn't play in a game like that?
Except they kinda can't if they want to still be considered Good people. If they do certain Evil things, or they do enough Evil things they can't be called Good.
"Yes, GM like you are exact reason many people don't like alignment. I don't mean as an insult, just as a fact. When I'm starting with a new GM, you are exactly the kind of person I don't want to get. I mean, I want to play MY character, and I don't use the line as an excuse to be an a-hole, your house rule is legitimately stifling creativity and roleplaying."
That's kinda an insult. With that and also "at as an excuse to make you characters do what they want them to do , instead what I want to do with my character." it reads more like you're getting upset on the fact that GMs set guidelines for character creation at all rather than you getting to make whatever you want.
Some games you can do that, but some games the GM will say "Hey, I was wanting to run a game for noble heroes" or "I want to run a spy game" which means you should think about a character that fits into that game, rather than already having one made and deciding to use them regardless of whether it clashes with the GM's story or not.
That's creativity, adapting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm always impressed with the level of decorum and class exibited in alignment threads.
It turns out many of us here enjoy and play the game in different ways, and/or have different views on aspects of it. (Shocking, I know.) And reasonably likely that some of us would not enjoy the way that some others play.
So what?
Is the kind of sniping in this thread helping anyone have a more enjoyable or richer gaming experience?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except they kinda can't if they want to still be considered Good people. If they do certain Evil things, or they do enough Evil things they can't be called Good.
"Yes, GM like you are exact reason many people don't like alignment. I don't mean as an insult, just as a fact. When I'm starting with a new GM, you are exactly the kind of person I don't want to get. I mean, I want to play MY character, and I don't use the line as an excuse to be an a-hole, your house rule is legitimately stifling creativity and roleplaying."
That's kinda an insult. With that and also "at as an excuse to make you characters do what they want them to do (Which was not they said, not even close), instead what I want to do with my character." it reads more like you're getting upset on the fact that GMs set guidelines for character creation at all rather than you getting to make whatever you want.
Some games you can do that, but some games the GM will say "Hey, I was wanting to run a game for noble heroes" or "I want to run a spy game" which means you should think about a character that fits into that game, rather than already having one made and deciding to use them regardless of whether it clashes with the GM's story or not.
That's creativity, adapting.
I'm not have no problem with losing the good alignment. I have a problem with handing in my character sheet. Which is making characters doing what Redelia wants them to do. It's a type of game that Redelia wants to run, and simultaneously it's a type of game I (and others I know) have no intention of playing. Which is my point. And if I said I mean no insult shouldn't my statement be read in most favorable light rather than worst? I clarified my position through several posts, and still you claim I insulted Redelia.
As I usually play neutral characters, whose actions vary from (often-to-usually) good to (sometimes) evil it's stifling my roleplaying, as I'm not playing the character I want to.