| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that if alignment were an optional rule, it would be the best of both worlds.
People who want it can still have their LG paladins and Alignment based spells, etc.
People who don't want it won't have the scour the rules and try and finagle the system to try and extract out all the imbedded alignment stuff.
who don't want it won't have the scour the rules and try and finagle the system to try and extract out all the imbedded alignment stuff.
So you're suggesting that Paizo remove all spells that have to do with alignment, and that monsters would not have any alignments any more?
What about gods and clerics? No alignment for them either?
Different kinds of dragons would lose their alignments? And liches could be good as well as evil?
Pathfinder would become a story about physical power and magic, but nothing would automatically be bad?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am in this boat more then any other I have always used "mortal cannot be swayed enough to have alignment." religious classes have codes and alignment spells don't work on mortals.
I don't think you need Paizo's permission to play a game without alignment.
If you're looking for Paizo to come out and say "yeah, this stuff isn't important, feel free to ignore it" they are not likely to do that, presumably each of us can make that call ourselves.
Another alignment issue: the Planes. Would you just remove the planes that are about alignment, leaving only the elemental planes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another alignment issue: the Planes. Would you just remove the planes that are about alignment, leaving only the elemental planes?
No there is no reason to.
Just untie mortals from that part of cosmology the same way they are not tied to the elemental planes, shadowfell, negative energy plane etc.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
who don't want it won't have the scour the rules and try and finagle the system to try and extract out all the imbedded alignment stuff.So you're suggesting that Paizo remove all spells that have to do with alignment, and that monsters would not have any alignments any more?
What about gods and clerics? No alignment for them either?
Different kinds of dragons would lose their alignments? And liches could be good as well as evil?
Pathfinder would become a story about physical power and magic, but nothing would automatically be bad?
Most games do not have alignment, yet players and the word have no issue finding out who the bad guys are. As for the Gods, we don't need to know the AL, we have their actions and portfolios. Alignment is simply good way to start an argument, jerk players around and empower jerks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you need Paizo's permission to play a game without alignment.
But you do need to plead with every single GM for it.
So the whole 'souls' and 'judging' and all that would be part of a supplement, but not in the core rule book?
Or are you saying leave all the good/evil stuff in for setting and monsters, but PCs would no longer have any good/evil designation? And thus clerics could worship any god they wanted to?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another alignment issue: the Planes. Would you just remove the planes that are about alignment, leaving only the elemental planes?
There is no reason to change them without AL. The Nine-Hells is still the realm of Devils, the Abyss is still the plane of Demons and so on. They all come from myth and myths did not have the AD&D AL system. They work just fine without AL
|
Most games do not have alignment, yet players and the word have no issue finding out who the bad guys are. As for the Gods, we don't need to know the AL, we have their actions and portfolios. Alignment is simply good way to start an argument, jerk players around and empower jerks.who don't want it won't have the scour the rules and try and finagle the system to try and extract out all the imbedded alignment stuff.So you're suggesting that Paizo remove all spells that have to do with alignment, and that monsters would not have any alignments any more?
What about gods and clerics? No alignment for them either?
Different kinds of dragons would lose their alignments? And liches could be good as well as evil?
Pathfinder would become a story about physical power and magic, but nothing would automatically be bad?
And allow mechanics to interact with a character's morals without the GM having to stop and adjudicate each case with no guidelines but their own. This allows various things that would be more difficult otherwise, like a spell that discerns the wicked from the righteous, and the ability to call down divine energies against people whose morals oppose yours or your deity's.
All of those things could be done through GM adjudication, but those judgement calls would take time at the table and generally be annoying.
They all come from myth and myths did not have the AD&D AL system. They work just fine without AL
But there was a cultural agreement about "good" and "evil". If you remove the concepts of "good" and "evil" from the rules system, then you've removed the story basis for most of the monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those things could be done through GM adjudication, but those judgement calls would take time at the table and generally be annoying.
Funny how this causes zero issue in 100% of non-D&D games
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Cryatalseas. I don't understand why you are so fervent love for alignment for PCs the game does not shatter mortals are capable of doing great harm and kindness. whereas a Devils never going to save a kitten and an archon will never litter without actual plot happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They all come from myth and myths did not have the AD&D AL system. They work just fine without ALBut there was a cultural agreement about "good" and "evil". If you remove the concepts of "good" and "evil" from the rules system, then you've removed the story basis for most of the monsters.
No, you have not. Once more, most other games do not have AL, but have monsters plenty. Would you like me to list games with monsters, without the AL system that work just fine? Something you think can not be done.
Adding alignment would be harder than removing it. For example:
- Characters do not have alignments.
- Alignment restrictions do not exist.
- Alignment-based effects with a reduced effect toward neutral alignments, such as Unholy Blight, count all characters as neutral.
- Alignment-based effects with an effect only against a particular alignment affect all allies beneficially, and all enemies negatively.
- Detect Evil and similar spells instead detect whether a character sees themselves as an ally or an enemy if their hit dice would be high enough to normally have an alignment aura.
There, fixes your problem with alignment, change "characters" to "PCs" or "non-outsiders/undead" or whatever as you please.
Removing alignment as a default and including it as an optional rule would, I worry, either...
Relegate it to the role of many other optional rulesets, as a chapter in one or two books, a handful of feats and spells, maybe a minor class feature on an archetype (or archetype-equivalent) and that's it, never to be revisited. See: mass combat, downtime, verbal duels, etc...
Reduce it to "hey, we listed alignments for spells/deities, you can write some letters on your character sheet and try to match them to stuff if you want to for fun" with no significance.
|
|
Funny how this causes zero issue in 100% of non-D&D games
All of those things could be done through GM adjudication, but those judgement calls would take time at the table and generally be annoying.
And do those games frequently employ mechanics like Smite Evil, the detect spells, or Word of Chaos that would require such adjudication?
whereas a Devils never going to save a kitten and an archon will never litter without actual plot happening.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
You may be referring to pre-written adventures, where the GM only performs the actions written by the authors. The rules for good/evil are just structural parts of the adventures and the GM doesn't have to think about the personalities of the adversaries
So, I suppose if PF2 becomes completely focused on pre-written adventures with no deviations, then the alignment issues can just be something that the writers bake into the story. And alignment rules can be printed in the writers guidelines.
Perhaps they could become a chapter in a GM handbook in case a GM wanted to alter a printed story or write their own stories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And do those games frequently employ mechanics like Smite Evil, the detect spells, or Word of Chaos that would require such adjudication?
Funny how this causes zero issue in 100% of non-D&D games
They could. Smite is just smite. Or only works on things like demons or necromancers or some such. The Knights of the cross in Dresden files for instance are more or less paladins and there is zero AL system involve there. ( FATE based system)
It is easy to rework spells or remove ones that need AL. Heck I run 5e without AL, its never been an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
iirc in the Know Direction interview, Paizo mentioned that there are plans for options for groups who want to remove the impacts of alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ya i have no idea what you are on about. what about PC needs to be stapled down by alignment.
|
|
And do those games frequently employ mechanics like Smite Evil, the detect spells, or Word of Chaos that would require such adjudication?
Funny how this causes zero issue in 100% of non-D&D games
They could. Smite is just smite. Or only works on things like demons or necromancers or some such. The Knights of the cross in Dresden files for instance are more or less paladins and there is zero AL system involve there. ( FATE based system)
It is easy to rework spells or remove ones that need AL. Heck I run 5e without AL, its never been an issue.
In other words, they do not employ those mechanics, but used altered versions of them made specifically to no longer require alignment. Gotch'ya.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, they do not employ those mechanics, but used altered versions of them made specifically to no longer require alignment. Gotch'ya.
Not really, its the GM's call if something is hurt by holy effects. Something like Black Court vampire or a demon would be, something like a troll, not really.
There is game effects for what is does damage wise, but either something is hurt by holy power or it is not. The mortal don't know "why are you evil?". Hell, there are monster who are hurt by it that might not be "evil" but their nature is unholy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ya i have no idea what you are on about. what about PC needs to be stapled down by alignment.
What about alignment means being stapled down? Not a thing in my experience. They are great big vague categories with plenty of room for variation. The only thing two LG characters need to have in common is a tendency towards honor and altruism.
What about alignment means being stapled down? Not a thing in my experience. They are great big vague categories with plenty of room for variation. The only thing two LG characters need to have in common is a tendency towards honor and altruism.
And you will have people making a 400 post thread debating even that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was actually thinking of something along the lines of keeping it in the CRB, but adding a small section in the Alignment chapter that says, "The alignment system is optional. If your group does not want to include it, remove [these spells], ignore [these alignment restrictions on these classes], ignore the alignment listings of any monsters, and enjoy the game."
That way the game doesn't really have to change, but it provides an easy avenue to remove it for those who don't want it.
Please close these threads (again). At this point it's just an echo chamber since the others got tired of discussing this topic. Not to mention it's already been confirmed that it will stay untouched.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please close these threads (again). At this point it's just an echo chamber since the others got tired of discussing this topic. Not to mention it's already been confirmed that it will stay untouched.
Some one mentioned an option in podcast. If you don't like the topic, simply do not post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I shouldn't get involved with these discussions. Pathfinder having alignment is about as inevitable as it having classes.
Plus, alignment actually improves the fantasy aspect of games for me. The real world doesn't have tangible, provable forces of Law, Chaos, Good or Evil tugging at reality, but a fantasy world can and often does.
Most people don't bother, they have enough to deal with just getting by in the world. The vast majority of the population is solidly unaligned, Neutral in the cosmic sense. They either lack the conviction to pick a side or have the strength of will to avoid being swayed.
It sounds like there will be options treated in the CRB, which will be nice for overall versatility, but the default switch flipped to "on" would suit me and the people I've known best.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you will have people making a 400 post thread debating even that.
I bet there are in-world conflicts just as fierce also.
"Look at you, following all their petty rules. And you call yourself a Chaos-man?"
"Dude, I only crossed at the street corner. The street is busy it makes the most sense."
"You're just a Law-dog waiting to be leashed."
"For the love of Cayden, chill."
"Nobody tells me what to do!"
"You're the sort that gives our side a bad name."
People get funny when they are super devoted to a cause.
> Can we make alignment an optional rule?
It basically already is. I've ignored it since 1978.