RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
my definition f justice is not the same as law....In which case, playing Lawful Good should be about changing the law, via legitimate procedures, until it does match your definition of justice, no ?
Unfortunately the process to do that isn't always allowed by Pathfinder games. Lobbying, maybe even running for office, is a bit time consuming. Better to just violently overthrow the current establishment and set up your own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Count me in as mostly supporting the general idea. There are some cases, such as very narrowly defined playstyles that tie into associated lore, where I'm okay with alignment restrictions.
Here's an example that doesn't quite exist in PF1E but would make sense: If the Argent Dramaturge were to have a 'no Evil alignment' requirement, I'd be totally okay with that because it is a very, very specific play style (singing at certain types of evil to hinder it and help allies). The lore backs it, it's a very precise concept, and it makes sense.
On the other hand, restrictions for very broad ideas like Monk don't fit. I've met plenty of real-life martial artists who don't have Lawful views on most topics (and half the characters Jackie Chan plays in movies are NG or CG, flagrantly ignoring what the law says), but nonetheless keep up their training pretty well.
9 times out of 10, I want the restriction gone. Where it's maintained, it needs to be supported by both lore and being part of very narrow, theme-specific game mechanics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just feeling like noting that I consider race exclusive archetypes to be inclusive <_< Kind of like how people prefer class specific archetypes over general archetypes it seems. Like, if all archetypes are available to everyone, none of archetypes are very special. Race specific archetypes make it feel like race has something special only to them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didnt agree with this in the past, dont agree with this today. To me remains a huge part of PF as whole.
So no, i remain in favor of keeing each class with thier restrictions, like a paladin being only LG and so on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Limitations, what you cannot do, is just as important as what you can do.
There should absolutely be things that require specific races, alignments, genders, etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes should be as open as possible within reason, limited only by codes, oaths, divine anointment, etc. Archetypes can impose alignment, racial and even gender limitations within reason.
But I'm also all for chucking the alignment bits altogether, especially since it sounds like detect evil will be focused more on INTENT rather than ALIGNMENT now.
Contributor
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing to note here is that the OP simply stated that core rules should be inclusive to a wide variety of play styles and not place exclusive restrictions on key options. They specify the alignment rules specifically, but the core statement itself is a very neutral stance. Most arguments against it boil down to "LG Paladins are important to me" or "Without restrictions there would be abuse of the system". The first one is an emotive statement and could be flipped around to the opposite to the same effect. Also, adding restrictions due to preference is MUCH easier than working around a system that assumes restrictions and uses them as a balancing mechanic. The second statement excludes the point where the OP says that previously aligned classes SHOULD have restrictions, but just not alignment ones. A Paladin of Pharasma would still fall for consorting with undead or allying with necromancers. This is much more specific to the Paladin's class flavor than a flat restriction to all Paladins regardless of deity or philosophy, and it gives LESS room for dissenters to argue against because the restrictions are more specific. A player could argue for withholding healing from a murderer by getting fancy with alignment interpretations, but if the god giving them their powers has a rule about never withholding healing for the injured there is much less room for interpretation and it encourages roleplaying as the first response rather than pedantic arguing to get their way. Granted, every player and game I've ever been in ALREADY considers the deity's code more important than alignment, but at that point the alignment is just a guideline and inconvenient thing to remember when we feel like arguing.
Any other class can be the same way. The restrictions, codes, rules, what-have-yous are free to become personal and evocative for both classes and individual players. Could this be done with homebrew and personal preference? Yes. But again, when a new player picks up the book, sees the alignment restrictions, needs to be told what they even mean, then have to learn how to roleplay that alignment on top of being new: this is much more obtuse than just saying, "Here's a list of rules you have to follow or else." Cut and dry. No haggling. Arguably more restrictive than alignments, but easier to follow because they're clearly stated and not up for interpretation. The discussion here isn't about preferences. The discussion is about what would be best for PF2 to adopt as their default ruling going forward in a modern roleplaying community.
The interesting thing to note here is that the OP simply stated that core rules should be inclusive to a wide variety of play styles and not place exclusive restrictions on key options. They specify the alignment rules specifically, but the core statement itself is a very neutral stance. Most arguments against it boil down to "LG Paladins are important to me" or "Without restrictions there would be abuse of the system". The first one is an emotive statement and could be flipped around to the opposite to the same effect. Also, adding restrictions due to preference is MUCH easier than working around a system that assumes restrictions and uses them as a balancing mechanic. The second statement excludes the point where the OP says that previously aligned classes SHOULD have restrictions, but just not alignment ones. A Paladin of Pharasma would still fall for consorting with undead or allying with necromancers. This is much more specific to the Paladin's class flavor than a flat restriction to all Paladins regardless of deity or philosophy, and it gives LESS room for dissenters to argue against because the restrictions are more specific. A player could argue for withholding healing from a murderer by getting fancy with alignment interpretations, but if the god giving them their powers has a rule about never withholding healing for the injured there is much less room for interpretation and it encourages roleplaying as the first response rather than pedantic arguing to get their way. Granted, every player and game I've ever been in ALREADY considers the deity's code more important than alignment, but at that point the alignment is just a guideline and inconvenient thing to remember when we feel like arguing.
Any other class can be the same way. The restrictions, codes, rules, what-have-yous are free to become personal and evocative for both classes and individual players. Could this be done with homebrew and personal preference? Yes. But again, when a new player picks up the book, sees the alignment restrictions,...
So much this
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snowcats, thank you for boiling to the core of the brevity I started the thread with, that was the sort of direction my mindset was heading in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that monks and barbarians should lose the alignment requirements, though I think monks might strongly consider a code/ethos/philosophy.
I think clerics should still adhere to the one-step rule, and I think druids should remain Neutral along at least one axis.
Paladins... I think the core "paladin" should instead be a full-BAB version of the APG inquisitor. I think this new inquisitor should ordinarily adhere to the one-step alignment rule of their patron deity and should require a code defining their behavior & restrictions. I also think that most common archetype of this new inquisitor is the LG paladin with most/all of the current paladin's abilities.
---
Since alignment doesn't seem to be going away in PF2e, I'd really like an expanded section detailing the different alignments and expounding on what is acceptable, what isn't, and how the different alignments could handle the same situations. Part of this should ideally include language for how Evil characters still work together with the party and that CN player characters are not totally random creatures of pure Chaos.
I'd also like to see a section on selecting/modifying codes/ethos for all characters during character creation, as a guide for better/more thoughtful roleplaying (and not as a straight-jacket).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm looking through my AD&D Player's Handbooks, and I don't see any mention of Smite Evil among the Paladin's abilities. Detect Evil, certainly, ...
Oops! You are correct Bluenose. Smite came in at 3rd or 3.5 edition. Although I could have used the Aura of Good as an example of something alignment-based that has been around since the beginning.
Again, the important part is not the specifics of the rules text, but rather that the entire point of the class, since it began in AD&D, was a holy warrior of LG. That concept has never really wavered.
Should there be a LG only base class? Probably not. Just as there should not be a base class that focuses specifically on illusion magic. However, that means you should get rid of illusionist as a base class, not change the definition of illusionist.
There are some character class concepts that really require alignment restrictions. For example, if you are going to have a Samurai class, it should be lawful, as the entire concept of a Samurai is based on loyalty to a lord. If you are going to change the whole concept, just change the name as well.
I'm not against changing parts of the game that are there due to nostalgia. But it should be done by putting things where they belong, not just watering down the meaning of words until they are meaningless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think 5e did this very well and I would support PF2 just completely ripping it off. Alignment exists, but is rarely tied to any class features or spells. Paladins instead get a list of oaths to follow, and thematic abilities based around those oaths. Most oaths lean in a LG direction but don't actually require it. Things like smite now work on anything but do bonus damage to a broad list of creatures.
I'd also support a deity specific code that applies to all divinely empowered followers of said deity. I like using things like this to inform role-play, but I think the current system is too restrictive and also too vague.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think 5e did this very well and I would support PF2 just completely ripping it off. Alignment exists, but is rarely tied to any class features or spells. Paladins instead get a list of oaths to follow, and thematic abilities based around those oaths. Most oaths lean in a LG direction but don't actually require it. Things like smite now work on anything but do bonus damage to a broad list of creatures.
I'd also support a deity specific code that applies to all divinely empowered followers of said deity. I like using things like this to inform role-play, but I think the current system is too restrictive and also too vague.
The 5e paladin is simply great and the oath system is nice. The Devotion oath is classic, but no longer LG only. While the other oaths re fun and bring new flavors to the class
The 5e paladin is simply great and the oath system is nice. The Devotion oath is classic, but no longer LG only. While the other oaths re fun and bring new flavors to the classHonestly, I think 5e did this very well and I would support PF2 just completely ripping it off. Alignment exists, but is rarely tied to any class features or spells. Paladins instead get a list of oaths to follow, and thematic abilities based around those oaths. Most oaths lean in a LG direction but don't actually require it. Things like smite now work on anything but do bonus damage to a broad list of creatures.
I'd also support a deity specific code that applies to all divinely empowered followers of said deity. I like using things like this to inform role-play, but I think the current system is too restrictive and also too vague.
I do like the 5e paladin a lot, although I wouldn't say it is perfect compared to the PF version. Smite working on single attacks instead of a combat long buff doesn't strike me as strictly better design, and neither does it consuming spell slots. Divine Senses felt a little wonky too. But the oaths and alignment usage is pure gold.
I also gotta say, while I have been critical of 5e archetypes not kicking in until level 3 because it makes the first two levels feel super vanilla, oaths at 3rd level worked well for me. Gave me a chance to see the direction the campaign and my character were going and adjust accordingly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the 5e paladin a lot, although I wouldn't say it is perfect compared to the PF version. Smite working on single attacks instead of a combat long buff doesn't strike me as strictly better design, and neither does it consuming spell slots. Divine Senses felt a little wonky too. But the oaths and alignment usage is pure gold.
I also gotta say, while I have been critical of 5e archetypes not kicking in until level 3 because it makes the first two levels feel super vanilla, oaths at 3rd level worked well for me. Gave me a chance to see the direction the campaign and my character were going and adjust accordingly.
I agree not perfect, but IMO the oath system is damned near perfect. So easy to plug new ones in and puts lie to the Idea paladin must be LG s Devotion is pure up the classic code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not ?
Should there be a LG only base class? Probably not. Just as there should not be a base class that focuses specifically on illusion magic.
Oops again! I had intended to say core class, not base class. But tying an entire class to a specific alignment is very restrictive, at least by the standards of today. I think it is a little more logical to make something that specific an archetype or prestige class or something.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some codes of conduct are inherently tied to some alighnments, because the act of following a consistent code is inherently and (in my personal opinion) exclusively lawful. It's not that only lawful good individuals in past editions could be paladin but rather that the nature of the class demand a set of actions that made an individual lawful good. If you take away the LG restriction but keep the code of conduct the same, like 5e (not counting any oath that is clearly supported to be a stand in for the anti-paladin/blackguard) then you haven't really dropped the restriction.
So to prevent this from sliding back into another class-specific thread, in a class-general sort of concept, is it a bad thing to ask for a separation between alignment and character class requirements?1. Classes that have ethics/morals have those internally, not bound to an alignment.
2. Alignment is a personal choice outside of class choice and neither directly impacts the other?
3. Ancestry likewise is not bound to an alignment.Do these sound unlike unreasonable goals/requests?
Chaotic characters can’t have a code of conduct? I disagree.
Let’s take a potential code for a worshipper of Cayden Cailean.
* Stand up for what you believe in. Especially don’t sell out for coin!
* Freedom! There is no justice in a law that oppresses one person to benefit another.
* Take responsibility for your actions.
* Don’t be glum, chum!
Such a person would keep their word, for only by doing so could they stand up for what they believe in. They would have a personal code of honor and not go against it. They would not support slavery, serfdom, caste systems, or anything that prevented social mobility.
Chaotic does not mean roll a dice each time you want to make a decision. A chaotic can be just as dedicated to a set of ideals as a lawful person. The difference will be what those ideals are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This again?
"We want no more alignment and we'll keep making the same argument over and over again until we get what we want!"
"Me want play chaotic evil "paladin" of gruesome destruction! Gnurf!"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is fun how when people argue about the idea of paladins of different ethos always claim that those who want them just want to make CE paladins for Power gaming. And it is fun because CE paladins are actually one of the 2 valid PF paladins
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This again?
"We want no more alignment and we'll keep making the same argument over and over again until we get what we want!"
"Me want play chaotic evil "paladin" of gruesome destruction! Gnurf!"
You can do CE paladins now. Funny how you can have any AL paladins in 5e, yet the world did not end and the game runs fine. Your first comment is pretty much the reason given for not allowing non-LG paladins "we don't want them, shut up" even though its likely the most common house rules in D&D history.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but no:
-you can’t “make a CE paladin right now”. You can make an anti paladin, with MANDATORY CE alignment, notice how (1) anti paladin is a different class from paladin and (2) how “anti paladin” actually means “the opposite of paladin”.
-The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil. You want to change the class to a generic holy warrior class that can champion any alignment, which is the problem for the many people who oppose the change you incessantly lobby for.
-All this doesn’t mean you can’t have of should have different classes who embody different alignments. I think they should be designed and implemented in the game. They won’t be paladins but something else though. And each one should have its own MANDATORY ALIGNMENT.
-That said, I must admit I do believe the people who keep lobbying for removal of the paladin as is don’t really care about the class at all and just keep asking because they see this as an important step for removing alignment entirely, something they feel it would be easier to obtain if the paladin were no longer the embodyment of LG ideale.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just trying to wrap my head around why people are so hung up on Lawful Good when Paladins don't have Smite Chaos or any other ability pertaining to Law.
I think Paladins should be explicitly holy warriors with explicit codes of conduct, rather than being held hostage to nebulous ideals of "Lawful Good" that the rules don't bother to define.
Characters with full BAB, Martial Weapon Proficiency, and smite evil shouldn't be nerfed by the Comics Code Authority just because they're playing under a guy who thinks reading Superman makes him Immanuel Kant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I dont get is if Pallys dont need alignment, then why do they need codes?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but no:
-you can’t “make a CE paladin right now”. You can make an anti paladin, with MANDATORY CE alignment, notice how (1) anti paladin is a different class from paladin and (2) how “anti paladin” actually means “the opposite of paladin”.
-The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil. You want to change the class to a generic holy warrior class that can champion any alignment, which is the problem for the many people who oppose the change you incessantly lobby for.
-All this doesn’t mean you can’t have of should have different classes who embody different alignments. I think they should be designed and implemented in the game. They won’t be paladins but something else though. And each one should have its own MANDATORY ALIGNMENT.
-That said, I must admit I do believe the people who keep lobbying for removal of the paladin as is don’t really care about the class at all and just keep asking because they see this as an important step for removing alignment entirely, something they feel it would be easier to obtain if the paladin were no longer the embodyment of LG ideale.
Umm, the paladin in SOME VERSIONS of D&D is specific to the LG alignment. The paladin in 5e is not, and somehow the world has kept spinning.
And personally, I have no interest in removing alignment from the game, but I do think it's silly that LG is the only alignment allowed for Paladins. There are plenty of examples of non-LG paladin like holy warriors in fantasy fiction, and reserving an entire top level class for one particular variant of that character seems unfortunate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil.
This is false since the publishing of Dnd 5e, at the very least
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but no:
-you can’t “make a CE paladin right now”. You can make an anti paladin, with MANDATORY CE alignment, notice how (1) anti paladin is a different class from paladin and (2) how “anti paladin” actually means “the opposite of paladin”.
Yet, its pretty much paladin but made cartoony evil
-The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil. You want to change the class to a generic holy warrior class that can champion any alignment, which is the problem for the many people who oppose the change you incessantly lobby for.
Paladins in D&D are not limited to LG. You may choose to play a LG paladin if you wish, but its not required. Paladins re not champions of n alignment, they are holy warriors and that has always been the core of the class
-All this doesn’t mean you can’t have of should have different classes who embody different alignments. I think they should be designed and implemented in the game. They won’t be paladins but something else though. And each one should have its own MANDATORY ALIGNMENT.
A non-LG paladin is still a paladin, good, evil or in between. No need for new class. D&D puts lie to your claim non LG paladins re not paladins.
-That said, I must admit I do believe the people who keep lobbying for removal of the paladin as is don’t really care about the class at all and just keep asking because they see this as an important step for removing alignment entirely, something they feel it would be easier to obtain if the paladin were no longer the embodyment of LG ideale.
No, its just a stupid restriction, like the Human only was a stupid restriction and Druids having to be TN only was stupid restriction. This has been on of the most common house rules since the creation of the class. D&D has proved you can be non- LG and still be a pure up classic paladin, but thats simply not the only way to play a paladin.
What I dont get is if Pallys dont need alignment, then why do they need codes?
The codes IMO re a core part of the paladin, they are an oath, a knightly code of their order. This is not the same as an AL. And there should be many codes and many orders. Paizo has done this with its gods paladins, all the while trying to tip-toe round a silly limit
The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil.This is false since the publishing of Dnd 5e, at the very least
Or the very first paladin as they required lawful alignment [good alignment didn't exist].
Or the very first paladin as they required lawful alignment [good alignment didn't exist].The paladin in D&D & PF is a very specific kind of class. A warrior who embodies the ideal of the LG alignment, complete with mechanics meant to punish evil.This is false since the publishing of Dnd 5e, at the very least
Also, they were restricted to humans
What happens when a code pally breaks the code?
What happens when a code pally breaks the code?
It depends on who gives him his power. If he gives it to himself, not a damned thing. I like 5e's oathbreker path myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I dont get is if Pallys dont need alignment, then why do they need codes?
You got the irony of this debacle.
The answer? Cause they think this is the stop gap.
They accuse others of being too restrictive while keeping restrictions themselves, ofc the ones they deem resonable, which all is too hilarious.
Again paladin is LG in PF, a 5th paladin is NOT a pathfinder paladin AT ALL. In PF keeping paladin LG and with its code is quite reasonable, it is how it works and how many expect it to work, as been seem in the previous pool thread.
Also, pointing that people houserule this a lot is meaningless, it will also be houseruled back a lot even if removed, i already even know what my houserule number 1 will be if paizo changes this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess im at a loss for needing a class with a restriction, but not too restricted. You can be a fighter or a ranger with an oath/code in any edition. You can self impose oaths and codes, especially if it doesn't matter if you follow it or not. If it were up to me i'd just get rid of paladin class all together.
I'm all for removing the alignment restrictions from monks, druids, and barbs.
I'm of two minds on clerics and paladins, however.
On the one hand, Golarion lore already seems to support the idea of people worshipping (and gaining power from) deities that are more than one step away from them - the Cult of the Dawnflower in particular strikes me as ranging the entire neutral band (and possibly dipping into evil) despite mechanics requiring Sarenite clerics to be good-aligned or TN. (And let's not even get into the whole Asmodean paladin argument.)
On the other, letting, say, an evil character draw power from a good-aligned deity brings into question the actual divinity and power of said deity that they can't govern who accesses their gifts.
IMO the best solution would be, as some have suggested, to focus more on deities' individual codes of conduct rather than strict alignment.
Alternately, if we're really insistent on paladins being an alignment thing rather than a deity thing, just open it up to other alignments than LG - either have rules for each corner of the chart, or even just archetypes for all 3 forms of good alignment. As it stands, having LG paladins and no NG or CG equivalent implies, to me, that LG is in fact the "most Good" of the good alignments, which is... questionable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it were up to me i'd just get rid of paladin class all together.
This is what I effectively do NOW: I don't play one or join a game that has one. I play the game to have fun and protracted alignment arguments aren't fun to me and FAR too often that's what being a paladin brings to games in my experience.
They accuse others of being too restrictive while keeping restrictions themselves, ofc the ones they deem resonable, which all is too hilarious.
The difference is that a code has specific do's and don't that everyone can agree on. 'don't wear red' or 'drink a pint of ale on tuesday' are things everyone can agree on. Alignment is nebulous and subjective enough that EVERYONE can have a different point of view on a subject. So the answer is that people aren't suggesting that restrictions can't exist but that if they are there that they be ones everyone can easily agree on and are simple to adjudicate.
Secondly, alignment and codes can be FAR removed when you look at some deities. IMO, following the code should be FAR more important than the alignment in determining if you're following your god.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I dont get is if Pallys dont need alignment, then why do they need codes?
Because there's an inportant difference between being able to choose one of a handful of explicit, clearly-defined codes of conduct, and being expected to rigidly adhere to one unspoken code of conduct that's not even clearly defined in the head of the person enforcing it.
For the past forty years, the D&D alignment system has been a lazy and stupid stopgap measure whose arbitrariness and inconsistency actively undermines the purposes for which people keep stubbornly insisting it's necessary. That fact that the vast majority of Paladin threads are arguments about what "Lawful Good" really means should be sufficient evidence that the system utterly fails at modeling the existence of objective morality that it purports to.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again paladin is LG in PF, a 5th paladin is NOT a pathfinder paladin AT ALL.
The 5e paladin is a Dnd paladin (which was the original assertion, that DnD and PF paladins were LG) . It might not be your favorite edition paladin, just like an elven paladin in PF won't be the favorite edition paladin of those who liked AD&D more, because paladin were only human back then
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You got the irony of this debacle.The answer? Cause they think this is the stop gap.
Nope, I have never seen anyone claim this, ever.
They accuse others of being too restrictive while keeping restrictions themselves, ofc the ones they deem resonable, which all is too hilarious.
One has little to do with the other. You are making a false equivalency claim here
Again paladin is LG in PF, a 5th paladin is NOT a pathfinder paladin AT ALL. In PF keeping paladin LG and with its code is quite reasonable, it is how it works and how many expect it to work, as been seem in the previous pool thread.
You choose to invoked D&D and that is a D&D paladin, which puts lie to many claims you make. You can stick by the classic code and be non-LG or have a non-classic code and guess what, you're still a paladin.
Also, pointing that people houserule this a lot is meaningless, it will also be houseruled back a lot even if removed, i already even know what my houserule number 1 will be if paizo changes this.
No, its not pointless, this was one reason the race restriction got removed. Because like AL, it was house ruled all the time.