| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're calling fighting a desperate battle without a weapon or falling "not a GOTCHA"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main benefit is that it moves the conflict to the PC/monster level instead of the player/GM level
This just seems kind of odd: It kind of sends the message of 'do what I say or I'm going to beat you up' and IMO that's not really sounding too LG...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're calling fighting a desperate battle without a weapon or falling "not a GOTCHA"?
clubs are free and readily available in any wooded area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're calling fighting a desperate battle without a weapon or falling "not a GOTCHA"?clubs are free and readily available in any wooded area.
Unless it's a big club, then you have to buy those... But, good news, wooden stakes seem to grow on trees! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're calling fighting a desperate battle without a weapon or falling "not a GOTCHA"?
If you set it up so that there is no other option? Sure, it's a Gotcha. That wasn't what I described. I described a scene where the flow of battle had gone such that the Paladin's weapon had been sundered (a not wholly untypical tactic in many printed modules/APs), the other allies had been downed and, at that moment, the closest available weapon was envenomed.
The Paladin has lots of options. Unarmed combat (with Smite Evil). Take the actions to go to another downed ally who is further away to get a different weapon. Or to pick up the envenomed weapons *knowing* the consequences.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?
As a GM? I would find that incredibly flavorful and awesome.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta use that ludicrous fort save for something
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?
Or if the player isn't crazy, they can just wipe the venom off on their cape or shirt... ;3
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, Paladins as-written are somewhat balanced by needing to abide by a code. Your claim that Pathfinder is not such a system is counteracted by the published existence of the Paladin's code - and its extensions in further splatbooks such as Faiths of Purity (demonstrating that it's not just a holdover from previous editions).
Certain games may make codes a balance point for more powerful classes (Force users in Star Wars can't go around choking people or attacking NPCs that annoy them or they go crazy.), but Pathfinder is not and we shouldn't pretend Paladinhood is a super powerful class balanced around needing to abide by a code.
The Paladin is not balanced by its code because the Paladin would not be overpowered without it. The Paladin is about equal with the other good martial classes, namely the Barbarian and Bloodrager. The Barbarian is arguably a little better since the Barbarian's great problem solving rage powers tend to come online sooner than the Paladin's problem solving spells (compare Spell Sunder at 6th level to Dispel Magic at 10th level).
What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?Or if the player isn't crazy, they can just wipe the venom off on their cape or shirt... ;3
Sane players character's wear capes?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you set it up so that there is no other option? Sure, it's a Gotcha. That wasn't what I described. I described a scene where the flow of battle had gone such that the Paladin's weapon had been sundered (a not wholly untypical tactic in many printed modules/APs), the other allies had been downed and, at that moment, the closest available weapon was envenomed.
The Paladin has lots of options. Unarmed combat (with Smite Evil). Take the actions to go to another downed ally who is further away to get a different weapon. Or to pick up the envenomed weapons *knowing* the consequences.
I think it all boils down to this: no one is comfortable with the idea of a GM being able to control whether or not ones character can actually do what their class is supposed to be able to do.
This isn't like a situation where a Fighter or other martial loses a weapon - such can always find another and can still fight in other ways while weaponless. This would be more equivalent to a Fighter not only losing their weapon but also literally being unable to fight thereafter. Feats? Gone. Class Abilities? Gone. Anything that literally made you a Fighter? Gone.
It wouldn't matter that the rules were made to add flavor not to punish the players - the fact is the GM can make such a ruling because it is in the rules.
What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?Or if the player isn't crazy, they can just wipe the venom off on their cape or shirt... ;3
I was more thinking, does it count as using a poison weapon if they use it on themselves?
|
I was more thinking, does it count as using a poison weapon if they use it on themselves?What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?Or if the player isn't crazy, they can just wipe the venom off on their cape or shirt... ;3
Is it dishonorable ? If not the code allows this
What if the paladin stabs themself to get rid of the venom, then uses the dagger as normal?Or if the player isn't crazy, they can just wipe the venom off on their cape or shirt... ;3
Not really allowed by rules. Wish it was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole envonemed example shows just how stupid alignment is in the first place. "You used poison so you fall." "Why thats stupid." Poison is evil, it is used to kill things." *Paladin player stares at his sword he has been killing things with for the past 20 years*
Now a god having an anathema against poison. Well that is known from the get go and can be as arbitrary as the devs like.
Wait, how is a the paladin code a gotcha, but anathema is known, and not? This is what i'm talking about when I say that codes are far more problematic than alignment is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, how is a the paladin code a gotcha, but anathema is known, and not? This is what i'm talking about when I say that codes are far more problematic than alignment is.The whole envonemed example shows just how stupid alignment is in the first place. "You used poison so you fall." "Why thats stupid." Poison is evil, it is used to kill things." *Paladin player stares at his sword he has been killing things with for the past 20 years*
Now a god having an anathema against poison. Well that is known from the get go and can be as arbitrary as the devs like.
Generally codes will have do's and don'ts that are easy to figure out so you can be on the same page. Alignment is nebulous at best. Is it the intent, the action or both?
If you have 4 do's and don't's for a code that's 8 things you might have to go over to make sure everyone understands what the DM's/players thoughts are on them. Alignment? You have an infinite number of actions/situations you would need to go over to make sure you're on the same page. It's pretty easy to figure out which is easier to manage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah folks im not following. Alignment is a supposed straight jacket, but a defined list of can/cants isnt? I think the code is far more limiting and binary in the least interesting way. Alignment might be nebulous, but you have to put far more thought into your characters choices, which is a lot more interesting.
I'll acknowledge the paladin can be problematic, but thats on the code, not alignment. The unique combination of code and alignment makes the paladin a very specific experience. It never should have been a core class. As a prestige, it would be handled differently from table to table. However, the paladin identity has taken on a very different meaning to many gamers. So this solution would be a take away for many.
Now instead we have pally codes for each alignment on clerics. Paizo will need an entirely new sub-forum to handle all the falling questions. Go back and read any of ninja in the rye's silly scenarios and you will see the code sets all these up, while alignment is no where to be found.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a supposed straight jacket, but a defined list of can/cants isnt?
A defined list is the straight jacket you know about before hand. Alignment is the one you get thrown over your head when you aren't looking.
I think the code is far more limiting and binary in the least interesting way. Alignment might be nebulous, but you have to put far more thought into your characters choices, which is a lot more interesting.
IMO alignment is FAR more disagreements and debates: the thought is often isn't this action x alignment but will the DM think the action is x alignment. Codes you know going in what is and isn't allowed. Myself I'd rather the character think 'would my character do this?' or 'is this consistent with my characters outlook?' It seems SUPER meta to step outside your characters personality to bring in thoughts of alignment.
I'll acknowledge the paladin can be problematic, but thats on the code, not alignment.
No, it's an unholy hybrid of both: it's a code that says you can't do one alignment [and THAT is the key to 99% of the paladin issues].
The unique combination of code and alignment makes the paladin a very specific experience.
IMO, paladin is just the poster child for the issue.
Now instead we have pally codes for each alignment on clerics.
We just need/use the code for deities. Paladins would work just fine without alignment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole envonemed example shows just how stupid alignment is in the first place. "You used poison so you fall." "Why thats stupid." Poison is evil, it is used to kill things." *Paladin player stares at his sword he has been killing things with for the past 20 years*
Now a god having an anathema against poison. Well that is known from the get go and can be as arbitrary as the devs like.
I imagine the ban on poison use is due to it being considered an underhanded and dishonorable approach.
I don't agree with the explanation personally but that's what I would assume the argument is. It'd make much more sense for it to be a god-by-god basis; I could see Iomedae being more explicitly concerned with "honorable" combat while Ragathiel is more anything-goes-as-long-as-you're-smiting-evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now instead we have pally codes for each alignment on clerics.We just need/use the code for deities. Paladins would work just fine without alignment.
I recently took another look at the Antihero's Handbook and found the Vindictive Bastard. So, as of 2017, Paladins DO work just fine without alignment (for that matter, without codes).
And they can still be just as heroic as any other character. The only difference is the player doesn't have anything hanging over his head.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poison and lying are examples of acting without honor which is what the PF1 code forbids. They have nothing to do with alignment
Paradoxically they cause problems because people focus on these specific actions and overlook the greater theme which is acting without honor
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now instead we have pally codes for each alignment on clerics.We just need/use the code for deities. Paladins would work just fine without alignment.I recently took another look at the Antihero's Handbook and found the Vindictive Bastard. So, as of 2017, Paladins DO work just fine without alignment (for that matter, without codes).
And they can still be just as heroic as any other character. The only difference is the player doesn't have anything hanging over his head.
Er.. the Vindictive Bastard is specifically a post-fall archetype. You've ceased to be a Paladin in the traditional sense. I agree with your overall premise but it'd be best not to use examples that disprove your claim. >.>
@graystone If alignment is the issue what are the arguments outside of the paladin? Animate dead being evil? That is a metaphysical explanation rooted in setting flavor. When does it fall apart? When you apply a can/can't do logic to the act.
Can you come up with more alignment problems?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Er.. the Vindictive Bastard is specifically a post-fall archetype. You've ceased to be a Paladin in the traditional sense. I agree with your overall premise but it'd be best not to use examples that disprove your claim. >.>
The funny thing is, even though it's an ex-archetype you still detect as a paladin, can take paladin only options, ect. So as far as the world at large is concerned, it's still a paladin. Now the people IN the world might want to call you something other than paladin...
@graystone If alignment is the issue what are the arguments outside of the paladin?
Literally EVERYTHING about alignment. You can have 2 rational people honestly look at just about any situation and come up with two entirely different opinions as to what alignment said actions involved. it is so subjective/nebulous that it's virtually useless.
Animate dead being evil?
Sure: This is especially true of mindless undead. How can you be mindless AND evil?
That is a metaphysical explanation rooted in setting flavor.
What about the metaphysics REQUIRES the initials G, E, L, C, or N? If the super tiny blurbs under the alignments are OK for player, why not move those to planes and such as the type of people that end up there and what supernatural creatures live there. NONE of it requires alignment.
When does it fall apart?
As soon as any two people disagree an what alignment something is: this usually doesn't take very long... Something a paladin can run into even before play.
When you apply a can/can't do logic to the act.
"can/can't": the reason these work is EVERYONE can agree on what these means and even if you do come up with an issue with them, you have only those few concrete issues to talk through. That's something you just can't do with alignment. It the difference between a handful of black and white statements vs a infinite number of grey situations is stark.
Can you come up with more alignment problems?
LITERALLY anything/everything that alignment touches. it a rule with mechanics attached that is nebulous and ill defined enough that any action has the potential for a difference of opinion on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a deity who grants you, my loyal worshipper, magical powers as reward for your devotion to my teachings. These powers mark you as an authority figure, a teacher and guide to other worshippers.
Now, I tell you 2-5 things NOT to do.
When you do them, you're asking for a tap on the wrist? Just for even suggesting that I should strip my power from you.
I'm a God, this is not a democracy.
You're not a god. You're some guy in the pub who has had perhaps too much mead. (I'm kidding around.)
But seriously, why assume that these powers actually come from a god? Isn't it equally feasible game-wise to come at Anathema as entirely a man-made decree established by the church. Violating the tenants would lead the church to expel you, perhaps excommunicate you. This, and all of the associated role-play is, to me, much more interesting than the ever-vigilant all-knowing deity who instantly strips you of powers. Omnipotent ever-vigilant deities also don't feel like the fallible classic deities of say Greek or Norse origin.
A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.
Thanks graystone for answering. I guess your viewpoint is anathema to my playstyle :) Hope alignment is easy enough to ignore as it is in PF1 for you.
Thanks graystone for answering. I guess your viewpoint is anathema to my playstyle :) Hope alignment is easy enough to ignore as it is in PF1 for you.It's hard-coded into more than one class, multiple spells, and more. It is not at all easy to simply say "No alignment" in PF1 without actively ignoring multiple built-in (in some cases, intertwined) rules. I'd be THRILLED for it simply being reduced to a point where it COULD be easily ignored (much like Starfinder...it exists, and can be tossed aside without impact by those who don't want it).
Eh, I had a GM that avoided it pretty easy. He didnt like the chaos-law part so are there was only good/evil. Pallys just had to do good things and not evil things. He skipped using planar and other problematic foes. Seemed pretty effortless.
I can see PFS being a problem tho. Are PFS scenarios often alignment heavy adventures?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animate dead being evil?Sure: This is especially true of mindless undead. How can you be mindless AND evil?
It's not "you, the corpse" being evil. It's "your existence as an aberration of the laws of nature" being literally anti-good. The mere fact that you exist goes against Good itself.
It makes no sense for us? Sure. But the metaphysics of the Pathfinder universe are rooted in the fact that Good/Evil Lawfulness/Chaos are tangible Magical forces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks graystone for answering. I guess your viewpoint is anathema to my playstyle :) Hope alignment is easy enough to ignore as it is in PF1 for you.
My perspective is driven by not having a stable, home group: I play online with multiple GM's/players. Alignment becomes much more workable once you've played enough with a group of players and can figure out how everyone thinks. It's a much different thing when you have a different Dm and players everytime you start up a game and have to start from scratch. It doesn't take many games breaking down and ending from alignment arguments before you really start disliking the entire system. it's the main reason I don't play any game with a paladin and don't play one myself.
I'm HOPING the new game has alignment with less impact and/or rules for playing without it. If you can play the game with alignment and I can play without it, and neither of us are burdened with a lot of effort to play that way, I'll count that as a win/win.
Creating a mindless undead involves trapping a soul in a lobotomized horror that can do nothing but suffer and make others suffer. On the other hand are liches, who only exist through a process of committing multiple atrocities. In the middle are sapient undead that were not in control of their own transformation like vampires, which are... more difficult to pin down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creating a mindless undead involves trapping a soul in a lobotomized horror that can do nothing but suffer and make others suffer.
You can make a case for the creation of undead being evil: Why are the mindless undead evil? How can you have - int and then make moral actions?
|
Creating a mindless undead involves trapping a soul in a lobotomized horror that can do nothing but suffer and make others suffer.You can make a case for the creation of undead being evil: Why are the mindless undead evil? How can you have - int and then make moral actions?
I think it's because they mindlessly just try to murder everything. Cuz being animated with negative energy makes you do that apparently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks graystone for answering. I guess your viewpoint is anathema to my playstyle :) Hope alignment is easy enough to ignore as it is in PF1 for you.My perspective is driven by not having a stable, home group: I play online with multiple GM's/players. Alignment becomes much more workable once you've played enough with a group of players and can figure out how everyone thinks. It's a much different thing when you have a different Dm and players everytime you start up a game and have to start from scratch. It doesn't take many games breaking down and ending from alignment arguments before you really start disliking the entire system. it's the main reason I don't play any game with a paladin and don't play one myself.
I'm HOPING the new game has alignment with less impact and/or rules for playing without it. If you can play the game with alignment and I can play without it, and neither of us are burdened with a lot of effort to play that way, I'll count that as a win/win.
I can respect that. I have a personal rule to never ever under any circumstances join a long term campaign with strangers. I need to start with one shots or PFS to decide if our styles are compatible. I can temper my experience for even the most grating individuals in this manner.
That said, I find it hard to believe an alignment gutted online game would be difficult to find. Though I have no point of reference. I genuinely hope you find great gaming in PF2 and beyond.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's because they mindlessly just try to murder everything. Cuz being animated with negative energy makes you do that apparently.Creating a mindless undead involves trapping a soul in a lobotomized horror that can do nothing but suffer and make others suffer.You can make a case for the creation of undead being evil: Why are the mindless undead evil? How can you have - int and then make moral actions?
So if I program a mindless murderbot to do the same it becomes evil? An animal? A trap that tries to kill everything? A construct? A vermin?
I have the same issue with neutral animal though... How/why does a non-sentient have an alignment? It isn't driven by any morality or it WOULD have an intelligence...
That said, I find it hard to believe an alignment gutted online game would be difficult to find. Though I have no point of reference. I genuinely hope you find great gaming in PF2 and beyond.
Generally it's quite rare to see a game actively remove it. More often, it's instead treated like encumbrance, ammo, rations, ect... it's there but not an issue unless someone pushes things to an extreme [unless someone has a paladin... :P] or it's an integral plot point.
EDIT: we should most likely end our alignment tangent as i see we're in the Anathema thread. Thanks for the talk Planpanther. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.
The antihero's handbook introduced a new type of archetypes with its specific rules : the ex-class archetypes which exactly answered this need.
I hope this ex-class archetype's type will be ported to PF2 because it opened a whole new vista of character concepts
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone is rapidly becomming one of my favorite people... though my standard is "Same vision on the alignment system" but hey! You go you glorious person!
Still i must say i like the idea of a more consistent code for all believers than just vague wishwash. As a VERY important aspect of this discussion that people forget is that not everyone play with friends, not everyone have that close knit group, not everyone have played on years on end.
For me that is one of those "game wanderers" would like to have consistency in the game where this vague stuff is more solidfied (more like a half-solid than a mere gas). I dont mind houserules, but for what is not accounted for it is better to have rules being consistent until otherwise notified. (Edited: The usage of the "Royal we" might draw the wrong impression on my statement here)
Alignment talk is pure opinions and views, and basing a mechanic on it will likely make it a very controversial topic whenever it does pop up. And i for one would like to play with a group on a whim and not "accidentally" lose my class features because my GM decide my god is in a bad mood that particular moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't address inquisitors detection abilities. (Or similar abilities for several archetypes of different classes). Or classes built around alignment requirements (or potentially losing aspects of a class due alignment infringements). Or the spells that specifically have built-in variable damage based on alignment. Or the ones that have variable effects in general based on alignment. Or protection spells. Or spells that can possibly act as alignment infractions. Or items opposed or linked to particular alignments. Or how it can affect alternate or variant methods of channeling.
It's not that cut and dried. There's far too many little, out of the way places it gets baked into the rules. It isn't impossible to do by any stretch. I'd prefer to avoid needing to houserule all of those bits of materials players desire to use. I'd simply like to have it near a point that it is as simple as noted above: in for those that want it, out for those that don't.
I've ignored alignment since around 1980. It is pretty easy to do, but you will have to make little on-the-spot rulings that I've found to be rather obvious.
Detection abilities often become "detect enemy" rather than "detect evil."
Class alignment restrictions either get ignored or you ask the player to describe what they envision as ways to violate their code.
Spells usually get translated such that "evil" becomes "enemy."
Infractions based on some spell attribute are like class restrictions if you want. I tend to just ignore them. I don't mind of a good character casts an evil spell from a mechanical stand point. I want the player to assume the role they've carved out, so moral dilemmas are for them to determine. I worry about NPC reactions.
An intelligent item will have a personality. They will either get along, or not, in a roleplay sense.
It doesn't take an extensive list of house rules to ignore alignment. You can adjudicate things on the fly with little effort. Usually its really obvious.