You know what? Forget it lets just get rid of alignment and not make it much much worse than it already is. Codes should be limited to specific classes, preferable prestige classes. IMHO.I think alignment should stay. It need to be developed further in that it causes less trouble at gaming tables. Or at the very least keep it yet don't tie it so much to classes. Nothing kills fun for a player or even a group if a DM for example makes a Paladin fall for attacking a powerful enemy under the cover of darkness.
Again keep it , update it so it's a helpful though not rigidly followed tool pf the rpg.
Your problem is your problem, and your fix is your fix. There is no solution for everyone.I never claimed my fix was the ultimate solution for everyone. Afer all is this section of the forums nothing but people offering their fixes to the new rules as a possible fix to them.
It does not reflect well on us as a fanbase where we keep complaining about the same issues with the rules, then when offered a chance to fix them refuse to do so. It's like the diabetic person who keeps eating foods heavy in sugar ignoring any advice to do the opposite yet keeps complaining about declining health because their health is getting worse as the diabetes gets worse.
It needs to be said and I include myself as one we kind of comes across hypocrites in the hobby. We are not the only ones resistant to change in rpgs to be fair yet we are the biggest fanbase in rpgs
The problem is not every member of the fanbase is diabetic. Not everyone needs sugar removed from their diet. If the E war should have taught us anything its that not everyone shares the same problem. When you fix something for some, you break it for others. At the end of the day, somebody is going to be disappointed. That doesnt speak poorly to the fanbase; that's life.
The problem is not every member of the fanbase is diabetic. Not everyone needs sugar removed from their diet. If the E war should have taught us anything its that not everyone shares the same problem. When you fix something for some, you break it for others. At the end of the day, somebody is going to be disappointed. That doesnt speak poorly to the fanbase; that's life.
I'm overweight and should have lost weight years ago. Now in my early 40s it's so much harder to do and I could have went into my 40s with less health problems.
As my friends and family told me they tried to help me and I ignored their advice so now I lose the right to complain. I can still do so yet no one cares or listens. I had a chance many chances in fact to improve my health and I ignored it.
My point being is if Alignment remains we really can't then say it causes issues at game tables imo. It's one thing if we had no choice in the matter. We do now and we can't ask them to keep things as is with alignment then complain it's the same. The devs can very well and should then point out that we could have fixed any alignment issues in the playtest we choose to keep it the same.
I think one problem with paladins is that they are a base class with the flavor and lore baggage of a prestige class.
Base classes are usually open to at least a certain amount of interpretation. When you're playing a barbarian, that doesn't necessarily mean you are a fur-clad warrior from some savage tribe. The magic using classes have a certain amount of lore attached to them, you can't easily divorce a druid from the fact that it uses nature based magic, but you still don't have to be a recluse belonging to an esoteric circle of forest dwelling mystics.
The paladin, as well as monks, thanks to alignment restrictions is already much more hard coded to have a certain flavor and that holds these classes back. Monks could just as easily represent their traditional flavor as they could represent a less spiritually minded unarmed martial artist, if you removed the alignment restriction. Paladins can still be the paragons of good and justice but can also be champions of other causes if you get rid of the restriction.
I think classes like paladins are part of the reason why some players can't separate a class choice from what the character actually represents in game. I play a barbarian that is actually a warrior nun in one game, and i still had one of the other players' character call her a "barbarian" in the game. In fact, even if your barbarian character is a shining example of the classic archetype they should probably take it as an insult if another character calls them a barbarian.
I play a barbarian that is actually a warrior nun in one game,
Does she fly? ;)
That's a very interesting concept. As well very interesting to visualize as well imo. The calm rational nun who rages (if your character rages) cold-cocking npcs or even pcs off the side of their heads with a bible.
I think what happened was and why alignment is a touchy issue is that for years players have ran Lawful Good and Chaotic Neutral alignments poorly. Those two alignments alone at varies tables as a player and DM have caused so many issues over the years no matter the issue. Yes it can be said it's the player not the alignment yet too often from both the defence was " I'm simply running my alignment". Which is why I think we need to have a code with the alignment as to what we can or cannot do. It will not stop players/ Dms who want to be disruptive yet it should also help reduce such incidents imo.
I think one problem with paladins is that they are a base class with the flavor and lore baggage of a prestige class.
Base classes are usually open to at least a certain amount of interpretation. When you're playing a barbarian, that doesn't necessarily mean you are a fur-clad warrior from some savage tribe. The magic using classes have a certain amount of lore attached to them, you can't easily divorce a druid from the fact that it uses nature based magic, but you still don't have to be a recluse belonging to an esoteric circle of forest dwelling mystics.
The paladin, as well as monks, thanks to alignment restrictions is already much more hard coded to have a certain flavor and that holds these classes back. Monks could just as easily represent their traditional flavor as they could represent a less spiritually minded unarmed martial artist, if you removed the alignment restriction. Paladins can still be the paragons of good and justice but can also be champions of other causes if you get rid of the restriction.
I think classes like paladins are part of the reason why some players can't separate a class choice from what the character actually represents in game. I play a barbarian that is actually a warrior nun in one game, and i still had one of the other players' character call her a "barbarian" in the game. In fact, even if your barbarian character is a shining example of the classic archetype they should probably take it as an insult if another character calls them a barbarian.
Agree with what you said about the "prestige" thing. Indeed the Paladin does come with more baggage than other classes. What a Paladin is is VERY specific and they don't have as much variety as any other class. This isn't bad, however, since Paladins have always been awesome, flavorful and offer a dinstinct roleplay experience! I'd rather they be a prestige class than lose their gimmick and just become warpriest.
Monk issue was kinda fixed with Brawler, you can punch people regardless of your personality now.
I play a barbarian that is actually a warrior nun in one game,Does she fly? ;)
That's a very interesting concept. As well very interesting to visualize as well imo. The calm rational nun who rages (if your character rages) cold-cocking npcs or even pcs off the side of their heads with a bible.
She does rage, by reciting impassioned battle prayers and hyping herself into a righteous fury.
She does rage, by reciting impassioned battle prayers and hyping herself into a righteous fury.I play a barbarian that is actually a warrior nun in one game,Does she fly? ;)
That's a very interesting concept. As well very interesting to visualize as well imo. The calm rational nun who rages (if your character rages) cold-cocking npcs or even pcs off the side of their heads with a bible.
KILL THE MUTANT, BURN THE HERETIC, PURGE THE UNCLEAN! FOR THE EMPRAH!! *BLAM BLAM*
Agree with what you said about the "prestige" thing. Indeed the Paladin does come with more baggage than other classes. What a Paladin is is VERY specific and they don't have as much variety as any other class. This isn't bad, however, since Paladins have always been awesome, flavorful and offer a dinstinct roleplay experience! I'd rather they be a prestige class than lose their gimmick and just become warpriest.
Monk issue was kinda fixed with Brawler, you can punch people regardless...
Paladins as a prestige class? I've thought about that, too. It seems a good idea, to be fair. Paladinhood is hard to come by, so that makes sense.
But the question is: prestige classes will remain in the game?
I feel like alignment is sufficiently baked into the metaphysics of Golarion (it's how we organize the planes!) that it can't really go anywhere. What you could do is make some sort of diagetic admission of the disconnect between "alignment as a source of energy associated with outer planes" and "what acts result in the most universally desired outcomes" but people can do that on their own anyway.
If you don't like alignment, it's honestly pretty easy to remove from one's games- relatively little interacts with it mechanically
Alignment is basically an optional part of the game. Provide codes as a different option if desired. Allow GMs to use or ignore one or both in their games. So long as the options get into Hero Lab, all is good.
|
Alignment is a scary concept. If LG means you have to take prisoners, every paladin would primarily need to do subdual damage. As adventures, in the dungeon, in the forest or other place, they'd have to have a wagon train of employee's taking care of these prisoners. (I think this might be where the slavery reference came in - you're taking them someplace against their will, based upon a person's alignment and judgement [furthermore, have they broken specific national/regional/city laws for which they can be tried? Prisoners gets into so many negative areas. Just kill them.]).
One of my favorite PFS characters is Moby, a dwarven staff magus. His profession is midwife. He's a straight up murderer, as he really helps those unfortunate women with child. He's helping one particular under assisted portion of society. That's a good thing. When I play him, he is a willing participant in whatever the Society wants him to do. Because he knows he'll get to use his staff and kill something. By all standards, this is an evil being. I'd agree. But take out the joy of killing Societies unwanted and the Society's unwanted and he's just following the laws. How I RP and imagine him, he's his 5 charisma. By alignment standards, he's officially LN. He's following the laws, and see's the good and evil in the ways of men. Helpless little babies out on the street dying in droves because their mothers can't afford them and their fathers never knew. Or ending it before it got started. Yes, I know, place 21st century values on a fictional dwarf and it's pretty bad.
We always like the idea that we're individuals. That whatever it is that we are doing, it's ultimately right. I think as individuals, as characters, we need to be free of Alignment. For npc's and monsters, whose lives are there for our purest whim and desire should have an alignment or something that makes defining them categorically easier.
Please keep alignment as it is. Yes, it's a sacred cow, but so are classes and races (ancestries), and HP's and AC. So much of what I associate with the "game" includes alignment, especially when you start talking about Outer Planes, Outsiders, magical weapons, and certain spells. You remove alignment and you suddenly remove all of those other things. Not to mention the implication on Clerics and Paladins. I think there needs to be some strong continuity between editions of "the fantasy game", and Alignment is one of those things that should stay, despite other rules changes. And yes, when I say "the fantasy game", I'm thinking of Old D&D, 1st Ed AD&D, 2nd Ed AD&D, 3E, 3.5, and Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep alignment as it is. Because of my real world code of conduct I end up playing my characters all as LG/NG. The campaign setting does influence how they are perceived. In one setting, the party was part of the rebel alliance. So the same actions, which in another campaign would be labeled as LG, were here labeled as CG. Context does matter in alignment discussions.
You know what the real problem with the alignment system is? People that are anti-alignment.
Heh, perhaps. But I would say that while I'm anti-alignment, the presence of an alignment system that you like doesn't in any way interfere with me. So sure, put an alignment system into the game that you like. I can just ignore it.
Its just like Hero Points. They can put them into the rules, but I don't use them. The concept of Hero Points has been part of RPGs for decades. They've never matched up with my style of running a game. But Hero Point systems in rules don't hurt anything for those of us who don't use them.