why alignment (for characters) needs to go


Prerelease Discussion

451 to 500 of 860 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Ckorik wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:

Nope, keep it in.

** spoiler omitted **

Confirmed by multiple Paizo people including the very top dog - nothing is off the table.

Time to let people have a discussion and not try to shut it down.

You can't really discuss it.

This is a binary situation.

Those who want it are the polar opposite of those who want it gone.

Then the "compromise" offered by those who want it gone want it to be meaningless words that have no mechanical weight at all, thus wanting it gone in all but name. That's not a compromise. That is "victory" for them with the shallowest bit of lip service toward the conquered.

We want to keep alignment and we want it to keep, if not gain, more mechanical weight than it had in PF1.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Yes time to discuss how it can be implemented in a way you can live with it.

I'm good with that. I don't hate the idea of alignment, just the past forty years of execution.

Make it either actually objective or explicitly subject to social contract, and require a higher standard of logical justification for alignment restrictions on classes... and I will stop complaining about it entirely.

I can be 100% satisfied with the following reforms:

  • Paladins' Codes of Conduct are explicitly defined and there are a small handful of options that represent different flavors of Capital-G Good and, if absolutely necessary, Capital-E Evil.
  • Clerics and Inquisitors get the same treatment, even if their Codes are way less strict.
  • Classes that are not Clerics, Paladins, or Inquisitors stop having alignment restrictions. Not Barbarians, not Bards, not Druids, not Monks.

There, done, I'm happy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Those who want it are the polar opposite of those who want it gone.

Then the "compromise" offered by those who want it gone want it to be meaningless words that have no mechanical weight at all, thus wanting it gone in all but name. That's not a compromise. That is "victory" for them with the shallowest bit of lip service toward the conquered.

We want to keep alignment and we want it to keep, if not gain, more mechanical weight than it had in PF1.

You know, as ridiculous as it is to turn any aspect of pretending to be an elf into a holy crusade... there's a certain dramatic propriety to choosing this aspect for it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The advice i have always given to people playing D&D or other games with alignment: "Play the character not the alignment" from there you can give the character a more fitting alignment depending on the actions of that character.

The issue i have with this system is that people think a character have to "maintain" a alignment, when in reality this alignment is merely a descriptor of their natural reactions and morals to the world around them. Ofcourse you may have to "maintain" the alignment with certian classes for their deities, but in essence is that just following the code and morals of this god is enough to keep that alignment, and if the character start acting against their alignment it could be used as a character arch about losing their faith.

Alignment at worst is when its being enforced, alignment at its best is when its changes around the character. So again: "Play the character, not the alignment, change the alignment and not the character."


So, in light of the above statement...

Let's talk compromise between the keep it ins vs the kick it outs.

Kick it out (KIO) demand number 1:
Get rid of it.

Response from the Keep it ins (KII):
No.

KIO Demand 2:
Then remove all mechanical weight!

KII:
That's the same as getting rid of it, in all but name. That's an unreasonable "compromise" if we've ever heard one.

-----

So - If getting rid of it, and removing all of it's mechanical weight are both unacceptable offers, what do you have that actually is acceptable?

Bearing in mind that Paizo already HAS removed almost all weight of alignment anyway. With only a few rare exceptions anyway, specifically a handful of class requirements.

(Paladin, Monk, Druid, Cleric, and Barbarian)

-----

Paladin - Yeah. Not gonna happen. This one might as well be shelved. There will be no real compromise on that one and it will derail the thread, so let's take that off the table right now.

Monk - As a KII I would be willing to allow Monk to be opened from Lawful only to any non-Chaotic.

Druid - I think the lore is too entrenched here to open the Druid up any further.

Cleric - I think Clerics having to be within one step of their deity is fine. So there's no reason to open this up.

Barbarian - I'd be open to opening this up. Maybe allowing any non-Lawful rather than Chaotic only.

-----

That is how compromises work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
The issue i have with this system is that people think a character have to "maintain" a alignment, when in reality this alignment is merely a descriptor of their natural reactions and morals to the world around them.

Of course, some people think this because the rules will turn them into a fancy paperweight if they don't-- even for classes that have no reason for it, because they're not dependent on moral conviction or divine patronage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can live with less restrictions on characters. As long as planar beings are still the stuff of irrefutable alignment and spells affect them, I'll be good. I do like pallys being LG but I can live with some extensions like any good. Id be bummed if they make pallys of any alignment in which case I hope they dispense with 9 different codes and make some blanket statement to save space. Pally can be redefined as the armored fighter class I guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
I do like pallys being LG but I can live with some extensions like any good.

Yeah. I want multiple flavors of Paladin, but I want all of them to be Good. I just want the rules about how a Paladin is supposed to behave to be clearer and more consistent.


Sounds like that is the way the devs are going. I know there was a quote about a pally being able to lie when it serves a greater good and work with evil dudes without instantly falling. Though alignment was still something a pally needs to be mindful of. Sounds like a guideline instead of a standard. This allows each table to make it as stringent or non-event as they like. PFS is of course an exception.


With Monk, I don't see it as arbitrary...

See I don't (and never will) see classes as "Power Frames" like some others do.

I see them as lore driven.

So a Monk isn't "Dude who fights in hand to hand combat."

That is anyone who has improved unarmed strike.

A Monk is someone who lived at a temple, under strict rules, who practiced a formalized style that included specific philosophical lessons that took years and years to learn and are the core of the teachings of the art.

Thus, to me, lawful only makes sense. It isn't arbitrary. It makes sense.

That sets a Monk apart from "dude who fights well."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
I do like pallys being LG but I can live with some extensions like any good.

Yeah. I want multiple flavors of Paladin, but I want all of them to be Good. I just want the rules about how a Paladin is supposed to behave to be clearer and more consistent.


  • For the discussion in this thread - assume that the Paladin code doesn't change but the alignment restriction is gone.

  • Such that someone that wanted to play a CE paladin still was held to the 'do no evil' code.

  • Assume that CE doesn't mean 'someone who can't control themselves' - as that's a physiological issue not a moral compass issue.

I know this entire example requires a stretch - but if someone wanted to attempt playing a very bad guy - given a chance by a god to right their past (say they got an atonement spell - what a way to start a career!) - given the code in effect (and still falling for breaking the code) - would that character be 'impossible'?

Having an alignment restriction means you want all Paladins to be doing the right thing because the can't help themselves - leaving it open - opens the door to someone playing someone trying to do the right thing in spite of themselves.

They are not bad stories to tell, they just aren't what you are used to - and for paladins in particular - the code does everything needed without the alignment restriction.

*edit* - spelling


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

A Monk is someone who lived at a temple, under strict rules,

The Monk in particular is a bad example - your view is based on western media - and not how monks and martial arts were presented where they *originate* from.

Learning martial arts on your own was always a thing - the entire reason you hunt down a master was to 'learn their style' - yes temples had a style - but they weren't the pinnacle of the art. The Gods also had a direct hand in teaching mortals how to fight - and alignment had nothing to do with it.

This would be like telling someone that cowboys can only be lawfully appointed sheriffs because the only stories they were ever told were about the lawmen that tamed the wild west - it's 'true' but not the whole story and ignores a vast amount of real history and lore from the place it came from, and is ultimately insulting to the source from a lore point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

A Monk is someone who lived at a temple, under strict rules,

The Monk in particular is a bad example - your view is based on western media - and not how monks and martial arts were presented where they *originate* from.

Learning martial arts on your own was always a thing - the entire reason you hunt down a master was to 'learn their style' - yes temples had a style - but they weren't the pinnacle of the art. The Gods also had a direct hand in teaching mortals how to fight - and alignment had nothing to do with it.

This would be like telling someone that cowboys can only be lawfully appointed sheriffs because the only stories they were ever told were about the lawmen that tamed the wild west - it's 'true' but not the whole story and ignores a vast amount of real history and lore from the place it came from, and is ultimately insulting to the source from a lore point of view.

It's fantasy. Thus it is based on fantasy. Not real world historical recreations.

Liberty's Edge

My general opinion is that it's ALWAYS easier for the Gamemaster to grant permission than to take it away. It's easier for a GM to lift a restriction that is in the rules than to add one that doesn't exist.

It's going to be easier for a GM to say "paladins in my world don't have to be LG" than it is for them to say "paladins in my world HAVE to be LG". They'll get less pushback from players if they're enabling.

So the restrictions should be there (perhaps lessened to Good or Lawful rather than LG) but there should be a note saying that GMs can remove that if they wish.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:


Having an alignment restriction means you want all Paladins to be doing the right thing because the can't help themselves - leaving it open - opens the door to someone playing someone trying to do the right thing in spite of themselves.

(I'm saying this EXCLUSIVELY for playing characters; beyond them, it's a completely different matter:) alignment isn't what you ARE, but what you DO. The paladin wasn't born LG, he chooses to live that way, every day.

An ex CE who chooses to follow the paladin code, and is sincere, has already become LG.


Ckorik wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


It's fantasy. Thus it is based on fantasy. Not real world historical recreations.

That's not a good enough reason to insult the real world culture the material is based off of.

There isn't any insult. It also isn't a western thing.

I watch tons of Chinese, Japanese, and Thai Martial Arts films. It's a common trope in Western and Eastern fantasy.

I swear people are way too quick to cry insult...

Huh, that's odd. Martial Arts films are the problem we are talking about, so I am failing to see how that makes your point.

The point is it is more than just films... It is a fantasy staple. It is in films, books, comics, legends, etc. This is a game that emulates films, books, comics, and legends.

I mean, if we are going for a faithful recreation of the history of unarmed combat then we need to then have all "Eastern" Martial Arts pay homage to Greek Pankration (which was later picked up by Chinese Monks) as the source for Eastern Martial Arts, historically speaking.

Pathfinder isn't trying to do that though. They are emulating the fantasy. Which, in no way, insults the real world history of combat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Pathfinder isn't trying to do that though. They are emulating the fantasy. Which, in no way, insults the real world history of combat.

What alignment is Danny Rand? Sun Wukong?

The "Monks must be Lawful" doesn't have any roots in the source material. It is an artificial, arbitrary restriction that actually makes Pathfinder worse at the narrative concerns you're using to justify it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Threads like this worry me more about the feedback than about the changes paizo is making.
Cause hell will literally freeze over before I sit to GM a pathfinder game without alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment does introduce a difference in play styles that can lead to tension at the game table, specially when a character class insist on imposing some kind of morality. I certainly wouldn't miss alignment if it were removed, but its trivial to ignore if its included.

I'm under the impression that classic D&D alignment is based on the concept of "Moral Absolutism", which really doesn't fit my concept of the world in which we live and is thus difficult for me to apply to a game world. (I've not studied Philosophy.) If I'm not mistaken, "Moral Relativism" is closer to how I view the world.

At least within the games that I play, there are more people who look for "shades of grey" than for a rigid "black and white" of the alignment system.

The biggest tragedy to me is when folks insist that alignment determines personality, in effect making only 9 personalities possible. It was originally intended to be a classification, not a contract for behavior. If class abilities weren't tied to alignment, then you could leave alignment as something the DM quietly tracked in secret.


Nox Aeterna wrote:

Threads like this worry me more about the feedback than about the changes paizo is making.

Cause hell will literally freeze over before I sit to GM a pathfinder game without alignment.

Wow, I'd love to meet over lunch and know more about this perspective. I mean, there's plenty of mechanical things to object to and I doubt in the end PF2e will be the game for me, but to drop it over a lack of alignment isn't something I expected to see. (Nor do I think they'll drop alignment; you're probably safe.) The world is truly a remarkable place filled with interesting people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chance Wyvernspur wrote:

Alignment does introduce a difference in play styles that can lead to tension at the game table, specially when a character class insist on imposing some kind of morality. I certainly wouldn't miss alignment if it were removed, but its trivial to ignore if its included.

I'm under the impression that classic D&D alignment is based on the concept of "Moral Absolutism", which really doesn't fit my concept of the world in which we live and is thus difficult for me to apply to a game world. (I've not studied Philosophy.) If I'm not mistaken, "Moral Relativism" is closer to how I view the world.

At least within the games that I play, there are more people who look for "shades of grey" than for a rigid "black and white" of the alignment system.

The biggest tragedy to me is when folks insist that alignment determines personality, in effect making only 9 personalities possible. It was originally intended to be a classification, not a contract for behavior. If class abilities weren't tied to alignment, then you could leave alignment as something the DM quietly tracked in secret.

Alignment works perfectly once you realise it's neither a sledgehammer nor a straightjacket. It's a tool like any other, and when you try to use it to do something it isn't designed for you get problems.

It is more than capable of handling shades of grey.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

Alignment works perfectly once you realise it's neither a sledgehammer nor a straightjacket. It's a tool like any other, and when you try to use it to do something it isn't designed for you get problems.

It is more than capable of handling shades of grey.

It works perfectly when everyone at the table agrees on how it works. Any single person can envision the shades of grey, but collectively a group can rarely agree on anything other than the obvious.

I would agree that how alignment was originally intended (ala 1970's) that it wasn't intended to be a straight-jacket. Sadly, that hasn't been its execution.


Ckorik wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Alignment doesn't really ruin a lot of games. Incompatible playstyles ruin more games than anything else. I'm not saying alignment doesn't need to be fixed, but it's not really something that comes up a lot, and when it does it's normally attached to the paladin class.

I disagree - the change to spells with the [evil] descriptor caused an uproar. The change to not allow good undead caused an uproar - in fact almost anything that has to do with alignment causes commotion.

Just because you don't see it - doesn't mean it hasn't caused issues. Even the 'new DM advice' threads are rife with 'don't let anyone play evil - they use it as an excuse to be a jerk' - when the reality is that otherwise reasonable people *will* in fact use it as an excuse. Alignment as an acting tool to get an 'idea of your characters headspace' is great - it's the wrong mechanic for a rule in a game based on math.

Again - two reasonable experts in morality could spend all day arguing a single point and not agree - why this is left as a mechanic that can be used against the players is not reasonable anymore.

Are we comparing people being offended to resurrection someone and using them as a pokemon?


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

Pathfinder should NOT be a 'morality or ethics play'.

If it is included as 'optional' rules that are easily implemented, that's fine by me, but for the base rules alignment shouldn't be something that restricts or eliminates character options unless houseruled as such by a GM.

Keep it in the rules for those who cannot let it go, but keep it optional so that there is greater variety and options for playstyle, rather than using alignment as a justification for horrific war crimes 'because they weren't BEST GOOD'.

If that's done, then I suspect a lot of furor will die down. After all, the rules are right there, it's in the book, folks can use them if they want, they can choose not to if they don't, and PFS2 can go to an Infamy standard like Starfinder to cull the folks who think dropping Spheres of Annihilation on opponents is 'fun'.


Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:
Quote:
The Paladin that is best friends and adventures with an evil wizard - and remains best friends with him (Dresden Files)

Eee... what evil wizard? Harry Dresden is Chaotic Good.

He stopped being Good at the end of book 3, and went full on CE in book 12, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Pathfinder should NOT be a 'morality or ethics play'.

If it is included as 'optional' rules that are easily implemented, that's fine by me, but for the base rules alignment shouldn't be something that restricts or eliminates character options unless houseruled as such by a GM.

Keep it in the rules for those who cannot let it go, but keep it optional so that there is greater variety and options for playstyle, rather than using alignment as a justification for horrific war crimes 'because they weren't BEST GOOD'.

If that's done, then I suspect a lot of furor will die down. After all, the rules are right there, it's in the book, folks can use them if they want, they can choose not to if they don't, and PFS2 can go to an Infamy standard like Starfinder to cull the folks who think dropping Spheres of Annihilation on opponents is 'fun'.

I am 100% the opposite.

Keep it in the rules, and include an optional box that says, "If you, as the GM, don't want to use alignment, then don't."

If it is made optional it will annoy all of the people who like alignment, and will doubly annoy any of us who also play PFS where we will be forced to play without alignment.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Wicked Woodpecker of the West wrote:
Quote:
The Paladin that is best friends and adventures with an evil wizard - and remains best friends with him (Dresden Files)

Eee... what evil wizard? Harry Dresden is Chaotic Good.

He stopped being Good at the end of book 3, and went full on CE in book 12, IMO.

Nah, Harry Dresden has always been Neutral Good with Lawful leanings. He is most certainly not, and never has been, Evil. Absolutely not Chaotic Evil.


FaerieGodfather wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Pathfinder isn't trying to do that though. They are emulating the fantasy. Which, in no way, insults the real world history of combat.

What alignment is Danny Rand? Sun Wukong?

The "Monks must be Lawful" doesn't have any roots in the source material. It is an artificial, arbitrary restriction that actually makes Pathfinder worse at the narrative concerns you're using to justify it.

Which Danny Rand? Comic book Danny Rand is probably Lawful or Neutral Good. Sun Wukong isn't a Monk he's a creature of magic.


Dracoknight wrote:

The advice i have always given to people playing D&D or other games with alignment: "Play the character not the alignment" from there you can give the character a more fitting alignment depending on the actions of that character.

The issue i have with this system is that people think a character have to "maintain" a alignment, when in reality this alignment is merely a descriptor of their natural reactions and morals to the world around them.

Maintaining alignment is just a component - and a more easily enforceable one than some - of requiring players to maintain consistent characterisation.


FaerieGodfather wrote:


What alignment is Danny Rand? Sun Wukong?

The "Monks must be Lawful" doesn't have any roots in the source material. It is an artificial, arbitrary restriction that actually makes Pathfinder worse at the narrative concerns you're using to justify it.

The bit where Danny Rand is explicitly called out in the text as "worst Iron Fist ever" struck me as identifying what would in PF terms be an alignment problem with his behaviour, fwiw. (Edit; referring to the TV series here.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


Nah, Harry Dresden has always been Neutral Good with Lawful leanings. He is most certainly not, and never has been, Evil. Absolutely not Chaotic Evil.

Spoiler:
Deliberately choosing to save one life while knowing absolutely that it means dozens, if not hundreds of deaths, stops him being Good, and that is the end of book 3. Consciously espousing "let the world burn so long as I can save my daughter" in book 12 makes him Evil - and I believe Jim Butcher has said that that was not meant as hyperbole but as Harry knowing what that meant in terms of being willing to kill any number of innocents as consequences of his actions and espousing it anyway. And I'll believe he's not Chaotic when he ever, at any point, stops putting what feels right to him over listening to the input of anyone who might know what's going on better or be able to save more lives thereby. The choices Butcher made with Harry not associating with the wizarding community make perfect sense as a way of having him learn important stuff at the same rate as the reader rather than have to explain tons of backstory from the beginning, but they also make him a self-centred jerk who is all too easily manipulated into doing bad things.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:


I am 100% the opposite.

Keep it in the rules, and include an optional box that says, "If you, as the GM, don't want to use alignment, then don't."

If it is made optional it will annoy all of the people who like alignment, and will doubly annoy any of us who also play PFS where we will be forced to play without alignment.

Except it will be 'just an annoyance' versus 'keeping a pile of people away'.

And nothing is forcing people to play without a Code in such a circumstance.

In fact, if anything, the narrative is made *stronger* because there ISN'T some artificial moral/ethical construct narrating the actions for the character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Nah, Harry Dresden has always been Neutral Good with Lawful leanings. He is most certainly not, and never has been, Evil. Absolutely not Chaotic Evil.
** spoiler omitted **

Harry Dresden is hardcore Chaotic Good. Both before and after Book 12.

Several of his decisions in Changes were Evil. Eeeeevil. And he made them, damned well knowing they were.

Michael Carpenter would never have made those decisions, even to save his wife and his children.

But that's the difference between Regular Good and Exalted Good.

After everything he did, though, he's still going to put himself between innocent people and monsters bigger even than the one he's become. You dangle certain reasons in front of him, and like anybody, he will do the wrong thing... but he's still going to die doing the right thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
FaerieGodfather wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Nah, Harry Dresden has always been Neutral Good with Lawful leanings. He is most certainly not, and never has been, Evil. Absolutely not Chaotic Evil.
** spoiler omitted **

Harry Dresden is hardcore Chaotic Good. Both before and after Book 12.

Several of his decisions in Changes were Evil. Eeeeevil. And he made them, damned well knowing they were.

Michael Carpenter would never have made those decisions, even to save his wife and his children.

But that's the difference between Regular Good and Exalted Good.

After everything he did, though, he's still going to put himself between innocent people and monsters bigger even than the one he's become. You dangle certain reasons in front of him, and like anybody, he will do the wrong thing... but he's still going to die doing the right thing.

That analysis reminds me of this.

(And I agree completely; Dresden is a CG person who’s made some (big) mistakes.)


yeah.... ok..

something to consider
you can fool some of the people some of the time
you can fool most of the people most of the time
you can NOT fool all the people all the time

you can please some the people some of the time
you can please most of the people most of the time
you can not please all the people all the time

you however can insult some people some of the time
you can insult most of the people most of the time
you CAN insult all the people all the time.

all that said
compromise this:
leave alignment in or take it out with optional side ruler stating the other( ie: if its left in, side bar states it can be removed for such whatever reason)

have pfs alignment become optional to the whim of whoever his venture captain and or whoever is running the table

the for above compromise is not inteded to please or insult anyone


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Nah, Harry Dresden has always been Neutral Good with Lawful leanings. He is most certainly not, and never has been, Evil. Absolutely not Chaotic Evil.
** spoiler omitted **

One bad decision, that he even acknowledges was a bad decision, that he feels remorse over, isn't enough to cause an alignment shift.


Pain in the Backside wrote:

yeah.... ok..

something to consider
you can fool some of the people some of the time
you can fool most of the people most of the time
you can NOT fool all the people all the time

you can please some the people some of the time
you can please most of the people most of the time
you can not please all the people all the time

you however can insult some people some of the time
you can insult most of the people most of the time
you CAN insult all the people all the time.

all that said
compromise this:
leave alignment in or take it out with optional side ruler stating the other( ie: if its left in, side bar states it can be removed for such whatever reason)

have pfs alignment become optional to the whim of whoever his venture captain and or whoever is running the table

the for above compromise is not inteded to please or insult anyone

Leave Alignment in, optional side rule stating you can ignore it.

Have PFS use alignment by default, there it is non-optional.

That is about the closest I will cave to the "take it out" people. Take it or leave it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
If it is made optional it will annoy all of the people who like alignment, and will doubly annoy any of us who also play PFS where we will be forced to play without alignment.

PFS has ALWAYS had it's own rules and different allowances. Optional alignment in core can sit alongside enforced alignment in PFS. For instance, paladins must have deities in PFS but not in the core game.

HWalsh wrote:
Take it or leave it.

IMO, leave it. At the worst, I'd want no alignment as the base and leave an option for people that want it. I don't play PFS, so you can knife fight for alignment there.


graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
If it is made optional it will annoy all of the people who like alignment, and will doubly annoy any of us who also play PFS where we will be forced to play without alignment.

PFS has ALWAYS had it's own rules and different allowances. Optional alignment in core can sit alongside enforced alignment in PFS. For instance, paladins must have deities in PFS but not in the core game.

HWalsh wrote:
Take it or leave it.
IMO, leave it. At the worst, I'd want no alignment as the base and leave an option for people that want it. I don't play PFS, so you can knife fight for alignment there.

See... And this is why I don't think compromise is possible.

The anti-alignment people won't settle for anything other than total victory. I offered at least sensible compromise and they wouldn't take it. So we have no choice but to dig in and give no quarter either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All rules are optional.

Pathfinder Society is just a set of house rules.

The whole take it or leave it and digging in positions baffles me, to be honest. If we're talking about whether or not a specific rule being left in or out or not being optional will annoy someone .. that ship sailed a long, long time ago.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How is it that the sides that are open-minded and willing to accept more options always seems to take it on the chin from the folks who are refusing such?

Especially with an open-minded and encouraging of different playstyles company and their product?

Less restrictive = better for everyone.

Restrictions can be added later, by GMs.

Build the framework, and let the GMs flesh it in.

Have we NOT evolved in our maturity and gaming playstyle in forty years?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

See... And this is why I don't think compromise is possible.

The anti-alignment people won't settle for anything other than total victory. I offered at least sensible compromise and they wouldn't take it. So we have no choice but to dig in and give no quarter either.

You don't see it being just a BIT hypocritical that you draw a unilateral line in the sand and say 'I'm not budging from this spot' and THEN saying 'it's those OTHER guys that don't compromise!!!'. :P

All you did was go from 'alignment MUST be there for everyone" to 'alignment must be in there for everyone by default'. The end result is both default alignment. So your conditions have gone from total victory to total victory?

PS:and for perspective, for ME total victory would be total removal of any hint of alignment from the game. Leaving it in as an option is my compromise and hardly a 'total victory'.

knightnday wrote:
All rules are optional.

This is a falsehood when it's not YOU DMing and making the setting. When I play online, the 'normal' rules are the base, default rules: It severely limits your games if you are expecting/looking for optional rules in use. This is why I'd want alignment optional and not default. it allows people that are passionate about alignments to play the games they want while allowing me to continue to find games to join without having to advocate for setting changes before I even make a character...

451 to 500 of 860 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / why alignment (for characters) needs to go All Messageboards