Inclusive, not Exclusive


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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

To whom it may concern:

Paizo has made a significant effort to keep their product lines inclusive of various sorts of play and mitigate exclusive choices while keeping them available as a GM option.

In such light, respectfully request that the relics and artifacts of previous editions such as mandatory class alignment be discarded -- This does not change what a class is, it opens up play to a broader base of character options and also enables Organized Play to not have to micro-manage alignment nearly as much as proponents of some classes might imagine.

In addition, by removing alignment requirements from classes (not from the game) it also allows the narrower version of ideals to be implemented at the local GM level, with the broader and more inclusive material available.

Let us not repeat the mistakes of previous editions, where we were blinded by exclusion and restriction via an artificial ethical/moral perspective, and instead move forwards into a new era where player choice and agency matters, and where folks will not be obligated to go to CNINO or LGINO methods to ensure character compliance with written text.

Thank you very much for your time in advance!

P.S.: This suggestion would not and should not impact codes of conduct that various classes have.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Totally agree here. No need to restrict paladins, monks or Barbarians( and any other class I missed. Like Race based restrictions, this needs to go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I fully agree on this! That said, I would not want to see alignment completely removed from classes. I agree that alignment restrictions for a whole class has to go. But some archetypes or class options (e.g. divine abilities) being alignment-restricted is completely fine and makes total sense to me.

So for example I'd like to see paladins being able to choose their deities like clerics, and depending on their alignment they get different types of auras, with perhaps an archetype that exchanges the alignment-based powers entirely.

Silver Crusade

I don't see the need for this. I'd actually be fine removing the alignment requirements from classes so long as the other elements of them that regulated their behavior stayed intact. Ideally, those two things should be redundant ways of serving the same function. What I worry is that the elimination of alignment requirements would be a precursor to much more severe removal of limitations that add flavor. For paladins, it seems to me a character who wasn't lawful good couldn't possibly follow the Paladin code as it exists. That said, if someone really did find a way, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I just don't think it's possible. For barbarians, I would be fine with allowing them to be lawful so long as the rest of their behavioral requirements stay intact. Likewise with Druids. For monks, replacing it with a statement that they have to be disciplined in some sense would be sufficient in my mind.


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

I think I would have an easier time given how I think (strangely) with non-class-dependent alignment?

I'm not requesting a change to other restrictions, so Druids still do the natural non-metal armor thing, Paladin still have a code, barbarians still have rage they have to deal with, etc....


5 people marked this as a favorite.

In general, I agree with removing most of the restrictions, especially some of the real hardcore ones from AD&D. Here is a thread about it.
The difficulty with Paladins is that they are defined by their alignment, and have been for 40 years now. A paladin without LG alignment is like a wizard who doesn't cast spells. The real problem is that Paladins have always been a VERY niche class. They really don't belong as a core class, and never really did. They should probably remain a class for legacy reasons, but nostalgian and inertia aside, the barely qualify as anything more then an archetype for a class like inquisitor, or chevalier or something. Really, the base class should be something like "Knight". This could be a fairly broad class with all kinds of options, but not forced into alignment, mounted combat, etc. In essence, strip the smite, and the alignment stuff, and you are good to go.
Finally, paladins are a super-powerful class. Alignment, or some other restriction is required to keep their power in check. Just leave Paladins basically the way they are, and create a proper core class without the alignment stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:


The difficulty with Paladins is that they are defined by their alignment, and have been for 40 years now.

This has not been the case for a decade out side of PF, and longer outside of D&D. The "LG" only thing is outdated and has not been tied to the Paladin in fantasy in long time. Hell, when WoW came out that ended the reign of the LG paladin in general fantasy.

Even paizo has ran into those silly restrictions with its own setting. There are "paladin" orders that re not paladins and codes for non-LG gods that really should have Non-LG paladins s the base codes simply does not fit. So in place of the easy fix that makes the most sense, they make silly hard to use, complicated work rounds because they want to keep an outdated restriction.

Paladins are as defined as Human only, as they re LG only. Yet the Human only part died near 2 decades back.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d rather see alignments entirely removed from the mechanics of the game. Detect evil, smite evil, etc should all be usable against anyone who opposes you, (your goals, your gods, however you want to put it). This is the way I’ve played since 3.5 days.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd strongly disagree here. Alignment restrictions are a way of giving classes definition at a flavour level, and I think the game has already had too much of that removed. (Bring back Neutral Druids!)

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree strongly. A lawful good Paladin is too iconic for example.

Some classes might be loosened though.
And there should be better GM guidelines to handle crossing the alignment lines.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
... more... Paladins are as defined as Human only, as they re LG only. ...

That is really not accurate at all. In WOW, paladins are described: "This is the call of the paladin: to protect the weak, to bring justice to the unjust, and to vanquish evil from the darkest corners of the world." Sounds like the very definition of LG to me. The defining characteristics of D&D Paladins have been Smiting Evil, and Detecting Evil, for 40 years. Pretty much all video games from Ultima to WOW are largely based on AD&D. Looking in the Pathfinder core rules, the Paladins abilities are Aura of Good, Detect Evil, and Smite Evil. Again, sounds pretty alignment based to me.

There are lots of great reasons to not have Paladins as a core class, (and perhaps not even as a base class). There is virtually no precedent for a class called 'paladin' that isn't based in Good, and almost always in LG. If you want a non-LG Paladin, just call it a knight or something, ditch the alignment referencing abilities, and there will be a whole lot less confusion.

EDIT: The fact that the Anti-Paladin class even exists (and has for decades) clearly indicates that Paladins are a class that is defined by it's alignment. The anti-Paladin is against LG, there is nothing in the class against being human, having ability score minimums, or anything else.

EDIT2: changed WOW quote.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another palad...alignment post. Cool.

Seriously though, im all in favor of scrapping alignment.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheeto Sam, Esquire wrote:

Another palad...alignment post. Cool.

Seriously though, im all in favor of scrapping alignment.

Homer Simpson: "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer parallel modes:
- It's easy to play without any alignment whatsoever, it's not a part of any game mechanics and you don't write anything on your sheet.
- Alignment is a part of the game just like in PF1- Paladins are LG, Barbarians are Chaotic, Monks are Lawful.

Pick which of the two fits your group best.

I'm happy with people not feeling constrained when playing their Paladin because of how they conceive of LG, while still playing a Paladin as a virtuous, honest, honorable, upstanding defender of the innocent.

I'm less comfortable with someone playing a Paladin with "CN" on their sheet, thereby forcing the character through their perception of "what chaotic neutral is" and almost certainly making them less admirably heroic in the process.

So LG Paladins or Paladins with no alignment whatsoever please. I absolutely do not want Paladins with "un-Paladiney" alignments.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally down for certain classes, especially those with divine connections, having codes of conduct as long as the classes aren't hardcoded to actual alignment. What you could actually do is unify the codes according to the deity, so a paladin of Sarenrae and a cleric of Sarenrae share the same code based on their shared beliefs in, devotion to and direct mystical empowerment by the same superpowered entity.

Following this model, put the Alignment chapter directly adjacent to the Deities chapter. Each deity has a code outlined for them... and each Alignment also has one or more possible codes listed with it. That way, a Paladin (or whoever) in a setting where they don't have to get their powers from a deity, can use one of the codes associated with their alignment.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I love restrictions! If there are no restrictions there is no game. Constraints and what cannot be done is what gives definition and distinctiveness to the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would prefer parallel modes:

- It's easy to play without any alignment whatsoever, it's not a part of any game mechanics and you don't write anything on your sheet.
- Alignment is a part of the game just like in PF1- Paladins are LG, Barbarians are Chaotic, Monks are Lawful.

Pick which of the two fits your group best.

I'm happy with people not feeling constrained when playing their Paladin because of how they conceive of LG, while still playing a Paladin as a virtuous, honest, honorable, upstanding defender of the innocent.

I'm less comfortable with someone playing a Paladin with "CN" on their sheet, thereby forcing the character through their perception of "what chaotic neutral is" and almost certainly making them less admirably heroic in the process.

So LG Paladins or Paladins with no alignment whatsoever please. I absolutely do not want Paladins with "un-Paladiney" alignments.

And we wouldn't have to worry about particular class alignment issues if it was a function of character and not class.

If the class has a solid enough form of ethics, then a character doesn't have to 'serve two masters' -- the class has it's rules, baked in, without having to resort to a double-column checklist every time an action is performed.

Simple. Elegant. Straight-forward. Easy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
... more... Paladins are as defined as Human only, as they re LG only. ...

That is really not accurate at all. In WOW, paladins are described: "This is the call of the paladin: to protect the weak, to bring justice to the unjust, and to vanquish evil from the darkest corners of the world." Sounds like the very definition of LG to me. The defining characteristics of D&D Paladins have been Smiting Evil, and Detecting Evil, for 40 years. Pretty much all video games from Ultima to WOW are largely based on AD&D. Looking in the Pathfinder core rules, the Paladins abilities are Aura of Good, Detect Evil, and Smite Evil. Again, sounds pretty alignment based to me.

There are lots of great reasons to not have Paladins as a core class, (and perhaps not even as a base class). There is virtually no precedent for a class called 'paladin' that isn't based in Good, and almost always in LG. If you want a non-LG Paladin, just call it a knight or something, ditch the alignment referencing abilities, and there will be a whole lot less confusion.

EDIT: The fact that the Anti-Paladin class even exists (and has for decades) clearly indicates that Paladins are a class that is defined by it's alignment. The anti-Paladin is against LG, there is nothing in the class against being human, having ability score minimums, or anything else.

EDIT2: changed WOW quote.

Someone should have looked at Blood Elf Paladins before they tried to counter the WoW example.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor Firetusk wrote:
I love restrictions! If there are no restrictions there is no game. Constraints and what cannot be done is what gives definition and distinctiveness to the game.

I agree to a point , but I think those restrictions belong in the setting, not in the rules. DLOP just hinted at WOW's Blood elf Paladins. If you don't want to have those in your setting, that's perfectly understandable. But I think that there's no reason why the system should make it harder for players who would integrate them in their home setting.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Someone should have looked at Blood Elf Paladins before they tried to counter the WoW example.

That is like saying that the story of Satan-as-fallen-angel proves that angels are not Good. If anything, the whole thing points toward the opposite of a Paladin being an anti-paladin. That is to say, the opposite of super good is super evil.

It is not lost on me that Blood Elf Paladins don't really call themselves paladins, but rather "Blood Knights". Again, if we want to have all different kinds of 'Knights', I'm totally into it. I just don't think every guy who has a sword and a belief system should be called a 'Paladin'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks definitely shouldn't be lawful-only, but I don't think that's a thing anymore, is it? I haven't played 1st edition PF in a while. You can't have stuff like the Drunken Master and Sun Wukong and such as purely LG Monks, though, so it's an easy enough restriction to ignore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:
Someone should have looked at Blood Elf Paladins before they tried to counter the WoW example.

That is like saying that the story of Satan-as-fallen-angel proves that angels are not Good. If anything, the whole thing points toward the opposite of a Paladin being an anti-paladin. That is to say, the opposite of super good is super evil.

It is not lost on me that Blood Elf Paladins don't really call themselves paladins, but rather "Blood Knights". Again, if we want to have all different kinds of 'Knights', I'm totally into it. I just don't think every guy who has a sword and a belief system should be called a 'Paladin'.

Dude, they are paladins, very same powers. They just do not use that code, they made their own. In game terms they are the very same class, they re simply not LG and do not use the old code. Also "Blood knight" was a set order of Elite that held both knights and Paladins.

Blood elf paladins are the same class as human paladin. They don't have new twisted powers, they don't have new class name. Its the very same class. They are paladins, they are not however not classic paladins.


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

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?

Silver Crusade Contributor

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally:

I think some of the classes should have their alignment restrictions re-examined (and most likely discarded). Looking your way, barbarian.

However, I would prefer paladins and druids (plus possibly others I'm forgetting) to retain their current alignment associations. It's just part of what they are to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I always thought the druid restrictions were the goofiest. You could have a benevolent druid or an honorable druid but a druid who's both benevolent AND honorable? A sin even greater than wearing metal armor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
I always thought the druid restrictions were the goofiest. You could have a benevolent druid or an honorable druid but a druid who's both benevolent AND honorable? A sin even greater than wearing metal armor.

It makes TOTAL sense that a LG person can't care enough about nature to be a druid... they need to be either less good or lawful to manage that [as long as they don't then become chaotic of evil because they can manage to love nature either] :P

PS: and metal armor totally blocks nature waves from hitting the druid, preventing them from powering up the druids magic abilities. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


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?

bad or unreasonable, no, but I strongly oppose them - if a class is going to have ethical and moral requirements, which I strongly favour, not tying them to an alignment seems to be deliberately avoiding the tool we have for implementing such requirements.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree. In fact, I would champion alignment being removed from PCs entirely.

PC alignment is nearly always ignored until its a problem, or until it can be used against the PC. It is so broad in meaning it creates more arguments than any other aspect of the game. It adds complexity to the game that isn't needed and does very little for depth of play. It constantly slows down play when tied closely to a class.

So remove it from PCs entirely. Instead lets get something that has more meaning to individuals. I love Mouseguard/Burning Wheel's Instinct and Belief traits. They provide something that the players can use to judge their actions against, and gives the GM something to directly challenge. We could replace it with an allegiance trait, which would make way more sense for a paladin than alignment seeing as how the word paladin refers to a knight loyal to the palace directly.

If we need a simple two-word trait lets allow players to pick two adjectives and call them Morality. Now we can have honest greedy PCs or chaste murderous PCs.

We could remove the alignment system at it currently is entirely without major effect. Lets still have Good, Evil, Chaotic, and Lawful monsters, spells, items, and other elements that give off auras. That much is helpful, but we don't need those types attached to everything.

And yes, removing alignment restrictions from classes makes them more inclusive and removes unneeded complexity from them. I love the warpriest more than the paladin simply because it isn't put into the cage of Lawful Good.

I could go on forever about this. TL;DR - Alignment really needs to go the way of the dinosaur. We need something new that addresses that space in a better way.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
...if a class is going to have ethical and moral requirements, which I strongly favour, not tying them to an alignment seems to be deliberately avoiding the tool we have for implementing such requirements.

See my post above, but we need a better tool. The alignment system is far more restrictive and contentious than it is helpful and inclusive.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree, Alignment restrictions needs to die in a pit.

If a class has ethical and moral restrictions, it should be handled through codes of conduct (a la paladin style), but it doesn't need the alignment restriction as well.

In addition codes of conduct need to be far better defined in terms of what constitutes violations, or some sort of warning/guidance system should be inherently built in.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

My biggest two problems with any kind of roleplay/narrative based exclusivity are...

1. They make strong players stronger while further limiting the options of less skilled players. Alignment restrictions aren't that big of a problem if you know the ins and outs of dealing with alignment, roleplaying, and doing what you want anyway. People who are new or aren't as skilled or whatever, deserve to get to make the characters they want too, and they shouldn't be punished just because they aren't as good at narrative sleight of hand.

2. It always turns into narrative-as-balance sooner or later, and balancing mechanics against narrative has never worked in the entire history of tabletop because players will try to subvert it (and be right for doing so), and then the expectation is on the GM to run their game like a complete turd.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saffron Marvelous wrote:

My biggest two problems with any kind of roleplay/narrative based exclusivity are...

1. They make strong players stronger while further limiting the options of less skilled players. Alignment restrictions aren't that big of a problem if you know the ins and outs of dealing with alignment, roleplaying, and doing what you want anyway. People who are new or aren't as skilled or whatever, deserve to get to make the characters they want too, and they shouldn't be punished just because they aren't as good at narrative sleight of hand.

...

Exactly. Even if I were playing Monk that I wanted to be lawful, any lawful traits that I had that character portray, I’m doing so far more to remind everyone that I’m still within the bounds of the alignment restriction than as a natural expression of the character.


Whooop. Paladin of Freedom. Paladin of Balance. Chaotic drunk monk. Honorable barbarian following his clan's code of honor.

Make paladins free to fight for a cause of their choice. Call them Crusader perhaps? Make an archetype for each alignment if you must. Chaotic people want to punch people to. Don't make us wait for brawler to get re-released. Really why do you have to be lawful to practice drunken boxing? Also those of us with controlled rage are a little curious why we can't be lawful.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmm just to check, isn't the reason why PCs have alignment restrictions in order to prevent PCs multiclassing certain combos? I mean, I don't think there is anything wrong with concept of barbarian monk, but game mechanics wise that seems to be reason behind alignment restrictions rather than it being a roleplaying restriction purely?

Also, since it was mentioned, I love race unique archetypes so I'd hate for those to be removed, though I agree that their flavor shouldn't be something like Deadly Courtesan were you ask "Umm, what about this archetype requires character to be snake person with venom", they should be something that strongly use ancestry's culture or abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Core mechanical rules should be as wide and inclusive as possible.
It's up to me as GM to cut it all into ribbons for sake of my setting, and leave my players only with elves, dwarves, fighters, monks and spell-less rangers to choose at character creation.


Quote:
Honorable barbarian following his clan's code of honor.

Somehow following clan or tribe code of honor counted usually as chaotic in most settings.

But than alignments and how those cosmic forces really works together and oppose should be really rethinked.

(Make it 6 axis like in Warcraft) ;)


I think the alignment restrictions for other classes should go, but Paladins and Clerics having the 'one step' rule should probably stay. But barabrians, monks, druids etc? Yeah get rid of those, they really don't bring anything to the table and seem just as arbitrary as clerics not being able to play with sharp objects or dwarves not being able to do arcane magic.

Of course the names are kind of problematic. Barbarian is a cultural critique not a class, it really should be something like Berserker instead to allow perfectly civilized guys who do raging combat. And the term Monk referring specifically to kung-fu movie guys instead of religious ascetics is also problematic. What are you going to call the guys in a monastery that /don't/ do kung-fu? Or should the Benedictines and Cistercians be ass-kickers too?

But Clerics need to be in line with their gods, having a chaotic evil Cleric of Iomedae makes no sense except as a disgraced one who lost their connection to the god. And the tradition of paladins being lawful good is too strong to just abandon. I can maybe see making them any good, but paladins aren't just any holy warrior, they've got decades of tradition making them of particular varieties. A chaotic neutral holy warrior is something else.


my definition f justice is not the same as law....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


I think the alignment restrictions for other classes should go, but Paladins and Clerics having the 'one step' rule should probably stay. But barabrians, monks, druids etc? Yeah get rid of those, they really don't bring anything to the table and seem just as arbitrary as clerics not being able to play with sharp objects or dwarves not being able to do arcane magic.

I'd even go with paladins having to keep their Divinity exact place.

Clerics with more leeway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
And the tradition of paladins being lawful good is too strong to just abandon. I can maybe see making them any good, but paladins aren't just any holy warrior, they've got decades of tradition making them of particular varieties. A chaotic neutral holy warrior is something else.

Make wide wide base class with paladin as subset of it.

Basically all base classes should be concepts wide as a Pacific Ocean.

It's easier for GM who don't want some elements to cut them off their fames, that for GM's wanting to have something to invent it from a scrath


Fuzzypaws wrote:

I'm totally down for certain classes, especially those with divine connections, having codes of conduct as long as the classes aren't hardcoded to actual alignment. What you could actually do is unify the codes according to the deity, so a paladin of Sarenrae and a cleric of Sarenrae share the same code based on their shared beliefs in, devotion to and direct mystical empowerment by the same superpowered entity.

Following this model, put the Alignment chapter directly adjacent to the Deities chapter. Each deity has a code outlined for them... and each Alignment also has one or more possible codes listed with it. That way, a Paladin (or whoever) in a setting where they don't have to get their powers from a deity, can use one of the codes associated with their alignment.

A code of conduct which in essence states ‘you do things the way a lawful good person would do them except more so”


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well some elements not so much.
Like poison ban is a relic of Gygaxian era where poisons were EVIL.
Which would be quite stupid in PF, where poisons are definitely less dangerous overall than RL stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Hmm just to check, isn't the reason why PCs have alignment restrictions in order to prevent PCs multiclassing certain combos? I mean, I don't think there is anything wrong with concept of barbarian monk, but game mechanics wise that seems to be reason behind alignment restrictions rather than it being a roleplaying restriction purely?

I think this was the idea in 3.5 behind some things, like cannot have a character that smites and rages, but Paizo made it pretty meaningless with bloodrager.

Anyway, I urge the devs not to make roleplay restrictions for balance concerns. It's crap and serves only to make problems at the table.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, allowing bloodrager to be L, while non barbarian is...

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Inclusive, not Exclusive All Messageboards