pf 2.0 alignment


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see the removal of any and all alignment restrictions both on classes and monsters it stifles creativity for character concepts by locking out certain classes from multi classing as well as makes monster encounters boring, I want to be able to run into good undead or red dragons or evil angels with out the gm having to make up a bunch of house rules and some convoluted story reason why these creatures are this way.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with your philosophy and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)

It's far overdo to nuke alignment from orbit. "It's the only way to be sure!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

I agree with your philosophy and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)

It's far overdo to nuke alignment from orbit. "It's the only way to be sure!"

nonononono one must call in for an exterminaughtus from the loyal servants of the god emperor so that no trace may be left with in the entire star system


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Let it die. Let it die in a fire as we toast its death.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

/Not signed


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GO to the thread that already exists about this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see it gone too, but I very highly doubt that'll be the case. Best we can hope for is to see it walked back from places it doesn't make sense.

Shadow Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I also hope it gets removed from the game, or at least relegated to a role-playing aid with no mechanical effect.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the 9 alignments; in many ways they are an iconic feature of the D&D gene and it would be sad to see them go. I've very rarely had alignment issues at the table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
/Not signed

I will back this too. Hope they keep them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

can sign it half way?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Paul wrote:
I like the 9 alignments; in many ways they are an iconic feature of the D&D gene and it would be sad to see them go. I've very rarely had alignment issues at the table.

I'd be OK if they went back to the *actual* roots of alignment. All 2 of them that the game had until alignment was hacked into the junk it is now.

Law and Chaos. That's it - nothing else.

Outside of going to the *actual iconic feature* I vote nuke it from orbit.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't agree, alignment is a core part of the game for me. Without it, it's just not d&d/pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think alignment should stay but it should be more explicit that all mortal creatures have choice. I think that if you want an evil angel or a good undead there should be a huge convoluted plot reason for why that happens since that is so far out of the norm. But no more justifying automatic murder of orcs and goblins just because their stat block says Evil.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
But no more justifying automatic murder of orcs and goblins just because their stat block says Evil.

this is not a problem with alignment, this is a problem with players and/or the GM and lack of communication about expectations in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is in.
So is a way to remove it.
Detect alignment spells are fuzzier.
Some, but not all, alignment restrictions are going away.
Source: Know Direction interview.

(Of course, this is speaking for the playtest.)


dragonhunterq wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
But no more justifying automatic murder of orcs and goblins just because their stat block says Evil.
this is not a problem with alignment, this is a problem with players and/or the GM and lack of communication about expectations in the game.

I agree that proper communication of expectations about the game avoid this issue. However I also think that it is necessary to have that extra communication because orcs are defined as evil in the bestiary. I think the new edition is an opportunity to avoid that issue by changing how alignment is implemented.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

This is one of those It-seems-so-easy-for-individual-groups-to-cut-it-out things.

KEEP Alignment is my vote.

Some things, MAD vs SAD Ability Scores, Race mechanics, Saving Throw issues, etc., are difficult (or impossible) to Houserule if you you have a problem with them -- but ALIGNMENT?!? -- it's so easy (even accepted as a minority choice) to just say, "No Alignment in my game. At all."

Just do that.

For more of us than you, we LOVE Alignment and would be crushed to have to add it to the game ourselves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For better or worse (and believe me, I have sympathy for complaints and concerns about the alignment system), it's a historical, core part of the game that should be retained.


Bardarok wrote:
I think alignment should stay but it should be more explicit that all mortal creatures have choice. I think that if you want an evil angel or a good undead there should be a huge convoluted plot reason for why that happens since that is so far out of the norm. But no more justifying automatic murder of orcs and goblins just because their stat block says Evil.

Pretty sure those misconceptions are on the people, not the stat block. Stat blocks already are just typical examples and in no way remove the possibility of outliers from the norm.

Also, objective alignment is part of Pathfinder's cosmology (one of the things I actually really like about Pathfinder's setting).

People clamouring to remove alignment often don't realize how broad the alignments are. A lot of people think "1 alignment, 1 personality, therefore only 9 personalities with alignment" which is fundamentally wrong and should be clarified.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:
it's so easy (even accepted as a minority choice) to just say, "No Alignment in my game. At all."

I see it from the other side. 'it's SO easy to say 'I'm adding alignment into the game''. I'd rather see an opt in option instead of a opt out one.

Scarab Sages

Honestly, if we don't remove alignment then we need to clarify and codify it. I know people hate it, but the ambiguity is what causes the problems. If alignment is a thing, and especially if it has any mechanical rules (spells, smites, etc.) then it's needed. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos - those are fundamental metaphysical aspects of the setting, just as much as the properties of the elemental and positive/negative energies.

And I know someone is gonna say "but if we do that people will toe the line with evil" - well that's fine, that's what we call Neutral.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
we need to clarify and codify it.

How many pages of codification removes the personal points of view on what action is what alignment? Is there a possible way to remove table/personal variance in this? For instance, is using an infernal healing to heal a dying orphan a good, evil or neutral action [or is it both a good and evil one?]?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I do is this:
Good and Evil = 'morality' Alignment
Lawful and Chaotic = 'personality' Alignment

And I don't like how CE demons war with LE Devils over Alignment


2 people marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

What I do is this:

Good and Evil = 'morality' Alignment
Lawful and Chaotic = 'personality' Alignment

And I don't like how CE demons war with LE Devils over Alignment

In Pathfinder, they don’t war over that. They don’t like each other, but there’s no big war.


W E Ray wrote:

What I do is this:

Good and Evil = 'morality' Alignment
Lawful and Chaotic = 'personality' Alignment

And I don't like how CE demons war with LE Devils over Alignment

They...do?

I always thought CE demons caused wanton destruction and clashed with LE Devils protecting their territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More than a complete removal, I'd want them to stay only as guidelines. That's it, no more mechanical implications, no more in/out table debates and arguments of 'That is not what a [insert AL and/or associated class] would do'.

Even if they remain unchanged, I would love to see a well defined variant rule to just to taste something different for a change without the need to rely on another game.

As an example, in D&D 5th Ed the Paladin no longer detects 'evil' auras, he just get flavorful yet obvious hints: the stench of death if it is a vampire, an overwhelming sense of graciousness if you are in front of an angel, the screams of tortured souls if it is a demonic being even in disguise.

You no longer have a Detect Good/Evil/Law/Chaos spell, just a simple Detect Good and Evil that detects instead otherwordly creatures (elementals, feys, demons, angels, undeads and aberrations).

I am well aware that I can houserule the game as much as I like, but sometimes I prefer to spend '20 bucks' and let another one do the job.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
we need to clarify and codify it.
How many pages of codification removes the personal points of view on what action is what alignment? Is there a possible way to remove table/personal variance in this? For instance, is using an infernal healing to heal a dying orphan a good, evil or neutral action [or is it both a good and evil one?]?

With any luck they wont put crap-ass spells like infernal healing in 2.0


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
graystone wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
we need to clarify and codify it.
How many pages of codification removes the personal points of view on what action is what alignment? Is there a possible way to remove table/personal variance in this? For instance, is using an infernal healing to heal a dying orphan a good, evil or neutral action [or is it both a good and evil one?]?
With any luck they wont put crap-ass spells like infernal healing in 2.0

IMO, the ONLY issue with the spell was the alignment tag: if a spell is aligned it should be truly 'good/bad'. Drop the tag from spells like infernal healing and 'prot. from' spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And the fact that it was on the wizard/sorc lists. Separation of spell lists is important. When one class can pick a spell for almost any situation but has a design restriction on a theme of spells, its a BAD thing to make an official spell that not only breaks that design restriction but also does so in a manner that's more efficient on average and for more of an adventurers career than an equal level spell from that theme.

1. Its healing on a wizard list
2. it gives more hp on average until a CLW caster reaches level 5 or 6
3. It has no CL modifier so its efficiency advantage is exponential where wands or potions are concerned.

Infernal healing is a badly designed spell for the purposes of game balance and power creep.


Ryan Freire wrote:
1. Its healing on a wizard list

Don't see this as ANY kind of issue. Is a wizard taking the spell? Not in my experience: so it's really wands and does it matter who is using them?

Ryan Freire wrote:
2. it gives more hp on average until a CLW caster reaches level 5 or 6

So it gives more HP but takes 10 times as long? Seems fair. It's better out of combat healing and worse in combat.

Ryan Freire wrote:
3. It has no CL modifier so its efficiency advantage is exponential where wands or potions are concerned.

And means that every level you gain lessens its power for you. You need 100 hp, it might only be 10 charges but it's also 100 ROUNDS to heal: it adds up, especially if you have buffs up.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Infernal healing is a badly designed spell for the purposes of game balance and power creep.

Not in my opinion. It gives a viable option for non-healer parties if they don't mind the wait and the bonuses are offset by the increased wait time: boots of earth do the same thing for much less effort and make claims that the spell is overpowered seem odd at best.


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

And the fact that it was on the wizard/sorc lists. Separation of spell lists is important. When one class can pick a spell for almost any situation but has a design restriction on a theme of spells, its a BAD thing to make an official spell that not only breaks that design restriction but also does so in a manner that's more efficient on average and for more of an adventurers career than an equal level spell from that theme.

1. Its healing on a wizard list
2. it gives more hp on average until a CLW caster reaches level 5 or 6
3. It has no CL modifier so its efficiency advantage is exponential where wands or potions are concerned.

Infernal healing is a badly designed spell for the purposes of game balance and power creep.

That's a fine opinion you have there. Healing should be doable by anyone including fighters but only during downtime - it's a fundamental part of the game that no one likes being shoehorned into but needed to keep the adventure moving.

See there is another opinion - neither of these have to do with alignment though - and your arguments about the spell (honestly) aren't making a case for why it needed to be 'evil' but rather that you didn't like a healing spell on the wizard list (and other balance concerns). Everything you dislike about the spell is outside of the alignment question - so perhaps deserving of a thread in it's own right - alignment didn't make that spell better (only worse).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its not an issue of opinion man, you can look at the math behind it and the commonly cited and accepted aspects of the game. Things like

1. In combat healing is an inefficient use of an action outside of an absolute emergency situation as an action that ends the combat faster is more likely to reduce the need for healing in general.

2. The math for the spells speak for themselves.

3. You'll burn roughly 2X the wands of CLW at minimum CL (and therefore cost) as you will wands of infernal healing at minimum level.

As for boots of the earth. Greater than 5X the cost, more time consuming to share among the party, Drains the timer on your buff spells as you have to stand still to benefit, occupies a magic item slot vs slotless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

This is one of those It-seems-so-easy-for-individual-groups-to-cut-it-out things.

KEEP Alignment is my vote.

Some things, MAD vs SAD Ability Scores, Race mechanics, Saving Throw issues, etc., are difficult (or impossible) to Houserule if you you have a problem with them -- but ALIGNMENT?!? -- it's so easy (even accepted as a minority choice) to just say, "No Alignment in my game. At all."

Just do that.

For more of us than you, we LOVE Alignment and would be crushed to have to add it to the game ourselves.

except this isn't for alignment in general just the restrictions it puts in place on classes and races


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Can't agree, alignment is a core part of the game for me. Without it, it's just not d&d/pathfinder.

alignment sure, but the restrictions are just dumb and should be abolished forever


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:

Honestly, if we don't remove alignment then we need to clarify and codify it. I know people hate it, but the ambiguity is what causes the problems. If alignment is a thing, and especially if it has any mechanical rules (spells, smites, etc.) then it's needed. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos - those are fundamental metaphysical aspects of the setting, just as much as the properties of the elemental and positive/negative energies.

And I know someone is gonna say "but if we do that people will toe the line with evil" - well that's fine, that's what we call Neutral.

I want less rules baked in alignment, alignment can stay but it shouldn't dictate actual game mechanics


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I would like to see a more dynamic alignment system kind of like light side/ dark side points in FFGs Force and Destiny. You could have a law/chaos scale like 10 to -10 and good/evil scale for the same thing. You could then key abilities off those. IE smite could only work on alignments you are opposite from.

You have everyone start as true neutral and have them advance based on their decisions in the game. With allowing one bump per level on each chain. So you have some control over your destiny.

This sort of system would allow you to bring a morality front and center into the game with only minor additional record keeping. It is not that far from the existing infamy system currently in SFS play.


@ Ryan

I allow free healing with the heal skill for one minute of work per recipient, up to a maximum of the damage taken since the party's last rest.

So... Really not a big deal


kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Ryan

I allow free healing with the heal skill for one minute of work per recipient, up to a maximum of the damage taken since the party's last rest.

So... Really not a big deal

Doesn't really change the balance issue of in game spells but i personally like the skill unlock heal option for non heal caster play.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
we need to clarify and codify it.
How many pages of codification removes the personal points of view on what action is what alignment? Is there a possible way to remove table/personal variance in this? For instance, is using an infernal healing to heal a dying orphan a good, evil or neutral action [or is it both a good and evil one?]?

https://detectalignment.wordpress.com

cliff notes from that blog would do the trick, I'm sure a good editor could cut it down to 2-3 pages without the logic steps.


I wonder if anyone has done a vote thread for the keep or kill alignments yet. It seems to be a very polarizing issue. I'm actually good either way before anyone asks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Choice number 1: Do away with it.
Why: Simple because I truly believe that most players are going to play "heroic" individuals without having to be shoe-horned into a particular brand/flavour of "heroic". The less that the individual player is asked to conform to a pre-determine notion of morality, then more power we're ultimately give to the players to write their own stories.

Choice number 2: Down play the mechanical and flavor aspects as much as possible, while still keeping the categorization for some mechanical purposes.
Why: This an acknowledgement that Alignment touches a lot of aspect from spell mechanics, to the afterlife of souls to the flavour texts of classes, countries and creatures. Minimizing these might require a larger amount of re-writing and rule-reworking, then simply tweaking the already existing Alignment-framework. So its simply about where ones wishes the most work put, in Alignment or elsewhere.

Choice number 3: Keep Alignment as it is, with or with out minor clarifications.
Why: Its easy, requiring the least amount of work.

So where am I?

I Hope for number 1, I can live with number 2 and would look at number 3 as a missed opportunity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I always play alignment fluid characters:

Kingmaker: I played a deliberately good PC who only turned towards evil (in truth, neutrality) because of his love for his brothers and was willing to do something evil in order to save one of them.

Serpent's Skull: I played a neutral character who remained largely neutral despite going down the path of necromancy (he was a barbarian so his necromancy was largely flavourful rage powers).

Iron Gods: I played someone who was thrown out of the evil organisation that act as the AP's primary antagonist (at the encouragement of the GM). He was evil as all hell (but still saved the nation for his own reasons).

Strange Aeons: Started out as a good character who earnestly wants to keep his brother alive and stop him from doing anything too terrible. Has slowly became embittered throughout the whole campaign and while he ostensibly wants to save the world, he's ready to flee to Earth if it becomes apparent Golarion is a lost cause. Lo anyone who gets in his way at this point.

War for the Crown: I'm playing a character that is appropriate to the setting. He's either CN or CE or NE or something along those lines. He's a rogue who gets hired out by nobles to take care of things they'd rather not sully their hands with. He's still inclined to do the right thing, but only because stability in the country means a better life for him.

Now those who are fans of alignment may look at those characters and shudder. In truth, more of them have done questionable things. Although some of them were truly surprising and came out of nowhere for me (Kingmaker in particular but Strange Aeons to a lesser degree) and were an in character response to the events happening in their lives. Overall my GMs for the most part have been willing to accomodate my characters (with at least one blatantly encouraging me to play the alignment questionable characters). I have also played CG/NG characters (halfling who will do whatever it takes to free slaves from slavery) and a LG character (Paladin of Alseta). But these were PFS characters and so didn't get mentioned.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What about
Choice number 4: strengthen the mechanical implications of alignment


Redelia wrote:

What about

Choice number 4: strengthen the mechanical implications of alignment

Sure, though I'm not quite sure how you could strengthen them.

I'm mean I guess you could make four bar consisting of two ten box rows. Ie Good bar, Evil bar, Chaotic bar and Lawful bar. With a row of boxes for permanent "points" and one for temporary "points".
Then you would have a highly detailed list of which actions would generally add points to which Alignment-row.
Like lying adds 2 points to the temporary Chaotic-row (which if it reaches 10 points is converted into 1 point of permanent "Chaotic" - tho would of cause be the same across all Alignment-rows). Murder adds to the Evil-row, Charity adds to The Good-row, with detailed descriptions of when the "point" are temporary and when it permanent.
Last we would need a table to compare the rows to figure out the exact Alignment of each individual character, something like if Good is greater then Evil by 3 or more permanent "points" and Chaotic and Lawful is within 3 or less permanent "points" of each other other, then the character is Neutral Good (I have no idea if that would be remotely accurate - just spit-balling here)

The whole thing though would seem rather unlikely as its neither user-friendly nor intuitive. Nor would it in all probability change much in the way of house-ruling or tweaking of such rules, as people are pretty set in such things already. Would prevent much of the existing discussions nor gear for that matter either, by my reckoning.
Still could be interesting to try out. I would do so, simply to see what kind of funny balancing acts I could get into when juggling the Alignment "points" around :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rename Lawful to Order.

Then you truly have Order vs Chaos. It's a commonly accepted trope in many fantasy novels, so it isn't without precedent.

It also solves the arguments about alignment changing when you cross a national border.

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / pf 2.0 alignment All Messageboards