| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment will remain part of PF2e.
However, alignment concerns are often the lurking shadow behind other concerns--sort of the man behind the mask in some cases. This doesn't mean those other concerns aren't real. It does not. It does however, point to a common or added complication that "spurs" other concerns and may make them worse. Perhaps it's the cause of those concerns in the first place.
So let's talk alignment ideas, as well as areas that alignment can make muddy ingame. How can we address these?
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
1. Remove Law and Chaos, and have Good, Neutral, and Evil as primary alignments.
2. Rename Law into Order. This has tradition in fantasy literature. I know, folks are tired of me saying this!
3. ...your idea?
Alignment is part of PF2e. Areas alignment affects that've caused concern enough though that a reader's natural response might be "oh gods not one more thread."
On the other hand, it's a familiar discussion. It's sort of like going into a painting class and going, "What is ART?" Alignment is kind of like that for us gamers.
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
* Necromancy and evil undead
* Evil spell descriptors
* CG and NG paladin-like classes
* Evil races
* Goblins
* ...popcorn?
...am I missing anything?
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
Would spend more pages in the core describing them and giving example and concepts around each. This way what it is to be each one would be much clearer to everyone.
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
I have no concern about how it works in PF1 overall, if anything else, im more concerned about changes that might come with PF2, like paladins that arent LG... which i will have to houserule or just ban the class to deal with.
On a side note again, my solution would simply be the same. Evil Races? Give a big explanation of what that means and how people should get the idea. Is it 99,99% of the members of the race? Is it 70%? Are they evil because of X or Y? And so on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would back it off so it's not a bludgeon used on mortals (PCs for the most part) but could still help serve as an interaction guideline.
That way monsters and races aren't *ALIGNMENT* which is something that has always bothered me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo released three supplements on alignments with the "Champions of" s Players Companions. Everyone that seems to have so much trouble understanding alignment would do well to read them. I generally just hand them to players when they start with an alignment unfamiliar to them.
...a bit involved for someone brand new starting up the game, and giving someone that much reading material that they must adhere to is a definite non-starter in this 'plug and play' day and age.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would really like to see something like this in the rulebook:
Alignment is not the moral ethics of any real word, but a game mechanic used to establish tangible motivations for characters within the setting of this game. Within the world setting of this game, the boundaries of what is good and evil, lawful or chaotic, will be as static or as flexible as the tone of the game calls for, and it will ultimately fall to the Game Master to define where these boundaries fall, what is good and what is evil, and what role alignment will play in the game they are choosing to run. The guidelines of alignment are deliberately simplistic and non-representational of real life ethical dilemmas. If the idea of playing a fantasy game with its own, entirely arbitrary, moral framework interferes with your ability to have fun with the friends you choose to play with, please feel free to consider dropping alignment from your game. Where it represents some mechanical element of the game, we have made it a point to provide a side bar giving you an alternative option for that mechanic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Individuals in Organized Play will have to take whatever arbitrary limits are in place regardless of personal tastes.
While a small section of PF players, it is still a significant section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally feel that alignment is usually used to give a shorthand impression of your character to the other players of the game. I'm generally less sure if it does a good or is useful in that regard though.
Alignment can help players notice potential conflict between player characters, and work on handling those situations before the game even begins, assuming that PC information is shared between all of the players, although I've been part of many games where this is discouraged to various degrees.
I don't think alignment needs to go, but I think there should be an emphasis on players to create motives, quirks and backgrounds that help create a fun game with the other players. I believe that the core book should emphasize creating PCs with the other PCs and the tone of the game to be played in mind. I guess alignment can sometimes be a part of that, but it tends to be too vague to do this successfully on its own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Munch...munch... oh jeez, im gonna need to hire a lot more help with all these alignment threads...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
Alignments are metaphysical forces like the f@&!ing books say they're supposed to be: remove "Neutral" as an alignment. "Neutral Good" is just "Good", and "Neutral" is either "Balance" or "Unaligned".
Unless your class or creature type is explicitly about the balance of those metaphysical forces, you're not required to have an alignment and you probably don't. No spell or ability targets Unaligned.
Distinguish Primal from Divine. Most Primal casters are Unaligned. Adding a Balance requirement and a Code of Conduct is a Prestige Class option.
Any class that has an Alignment requirement has an Oath that clearly and objectively defines the behavior required of the class. Ideally, there are multiple Oaths per such class.
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
The rules state that alignment is a system of objective morality, that they are explicitly not subject to individual interpretation, and are then so vague and inconsistent that they require subjective individual interpretation on the part of the DM.
If Alignment is going to be bright lines and sharp distinctions, then it needs to be clearly defined in the game rules.
If it's going to continue being murky, then it needs to be considerably more flexible and the rules need to assume that players and DMs will have good-faith disagreements over alignment issues-- that players should not be punished for.
* Necromancy and evil undead
* Evil spell descriptors
There's an in-universe explanation for why these things are Evil, and I generally accept it-- they're not morally wrong, they literally channel the power of Evil, leaving its residue behind in the caster.
Poison, on the other hand, has no such rationale... and the only book that tried to explain why poison was Evil also included special, extra painful holy poisons that were okay because they only worked... on the exact same enemies the PCs would have been poisoning anyway.
* CG and NG paladin-like classes
You know, bad as I want a CG Paladin variant, its absence is not a problem.
The problem is DMs and players disagreeing on what LG means because the rules don't acknowledge that they are subjective as f++@.
If a class is supposed to have a Code of Conduct, the rules need to give it a Code of f~~#ing Conduct that spells out what offenses are and how severe offenses are, and doesn't rely on meaningless weaselwords like "legitimate authority".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
Remove almost every mechanic from it: let it be a roleplaying aid to give a general attitude for PC's, settlements, monsters, societies, ect... Only outsiders/planes infused with the alignment energies and spells that relate to them would have mechanics attached to alignment.
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
Mechanics attached to it...
I'm pretty sure the tone was set when all the "we hate alignment" posters started victory dancing at the beginning of this forum about how it was the opportunity to be rid of any hated guidelines on character behavior.
I know for myself, I rather remove the whole thing and let players roleplay how they want and let their actions inform the game at large how they are treated. If help in direction is needed for some, a section of 'types/tropes' could fit.
Since it seems it still IS in the game, I'd like to pull out all it's teeth and let it stay as a roleplaying aid.
Whats behind all of these threads? Hwalsh.I'm pretty sure the tone was set when all the "we hate alignment" posters started victory dancing at the beginning of this forum about how it was the opportunity to be rid of any hated guidelines on character behavior.
Add to it the "chance to make paladins not LG only" and so on.
Ultimately, it is just people tossing ideas around, which is why i dont post on those threads more than once for now. Paizo aint changing what it defined right now either way.
For now im quite happy with how paizo is doing things. Adding anathemas instead of removing alignment value and so on. Have high hopes for the paladin.
Individuals in Organized Play will have to take whatever arbitrary limits are in place regardless of personal tastes.
While a small section of PF players, it is still a significant section.
I agree completely, which is why it seems like a good idea to remind players coming to games already in progress that the "rules of alignment" are arbitrary and defined primarily by the Game Master, for the purposes of shaping a story they want to tell, in the tone that they want it told in. If the Game Master is dealing with issues of morals and ethics in a way that makes you uncomfortable, it is perfectly ok to step away from that game or table.
Hopefully the paizo community is broad enough and helpful enough that players soured by one PFS table, don't end up having to leave the game entirely because they can find no one else to play with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it seems it still IS in the game, I'd like to pull out all it's teeth and let it stay as a roleplaying aid.
The problem with this is that its a fundamental universal force or at least the descriptor of a fundamental universal force in Golarion, which is becoming more entwined with the rulebook, not less. There's an entire god whose primary job is to sort that universal force.
Pulling its teeth flies in the face of setting at this point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it seems it still IS in the game, I'd like to pull out all it's teeth and let it stay as a roleplaying aid.The problem with this is that its a fundamental universal force or at least the descriptor of a fundamental universal force in Golarion, which is becoming more entwined with the rulebook, not less. There's an entire god whose primary job is to sort that universal force.
Pulling its teeth flies in the face of setting at this point.
Nothing about it being a "fundamental universal force in Golarion" requires mechanic unless you are actually dealing with that force [outsiders/planes]. So I don't see a problem/issue. You can play a paladin as you always have without a requirement on alignment. Necromancy can be seen as 'bad' because it messes with the dead and not because 'evil'. The setting continues to work as/is without alignment mechanics for players. What about alignment requires alignment based on the setting alone? Does the setting spiral out of control if barbarians can be lawful or monks chaotic? What about a protection from evil NEEDS an alignment?
I get that people dont like the concept of lawful representing a disciplined person, but it does, at least from a game perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that people dont like the concept of lawful representing a disciplined person, but it does, at least from a game perspective.
Except, no, it explicitly doesnt. Wizards, Martial Artist Monks, Magi, Cavaliers/Samurai, Clerics, Antipaladins--all if these require focused training or follow a code of conduct. None are Lawful Only.
You mean implicitly. Explicitly would mean somewhere there's text that reads "Lawful doesn't mean disciplined"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean implicitly. Explicitly would mean somewhere there's text that reads "Lawful doesn't mean disciplined"
Okay, let me ask you this. If I'm playing a Monk (not a Martial Artist, but a Ki-using Monk), then fluffwise, I should be disciplined. Except, Abadar is all about respecting the law, respecting authority, putting the needs of the group or civilization at large ahead of your own individual needs. He is not about the discipline. He isn't opposed to it, and also being disciplined doesn't hurt with regards to adhering to everything else that the lawful side of the law-chaos axis cares about, but it's incidental.
Ergo, if I'm playing a Monk of Abadar and adhering to everything lawful that Abadar cares about and specifically NOT being disciplined, then I am still checking off more boxes in "lawful" than not, and I still qualify as lawful and so can still level as a Monk as much as I please, even though I'm not being even slightly disciplined in direct contradiction to the only aspect of lawfulness that the Monk class actually gives a damn about.
TLDR; the designers made a mistake and misassigned the lawful requirement to the Monk. Yes, the Monk should be disciplined. Yes, discipline is a trait that falls more towards lawful than anywhere else. That doesn't mean Monks should be stuck at "lawful only" or even "any nonchaotic".
Some good points. :D
Let's refocus on the two questions, maybe. Some posters have had some great ideas and presented them really well. I love some of what I've read.
This can be a healthy discussion to have--and I think, is the more true discussion behind some of the others. Let's be respectful of one another. :D
Also, cookies. I hear that Sara Marie is a Secret Baker! :D
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
What's your ideas? How might you improve some of the ideas upthread?
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
It's okay to express concern. Let's do that. Just, be respectful, please. It's all one big table, even if all of us secretly want Mark's d20, because it only rolls 18 and higher. >.>
You mean implicitly. Explicitly would mean somewhere there's text that reads "Lawful doesn't mean disciplined"Okay, let me ask you this. If I'm playing a Monk (not a Martial Artist, but a Ki-using Monk), then fluffwise, I should be disciplined. Except, Abadar is all about respecting the law, respecting authority, putting the needs of the group or civilization at large ahead of your own individual needs. He is not about the discipline. He isn't opposed to it, and also being disciplined doesn't hurt with regards to adhering to everything else that the lawful side of the law-chaos axis cares about, but it's incidental.
Ergo, if I'm playing a Monk of Abadar and adhering to everything lawful that Abadar cares about and specifically NOT being disciplined, then I am still checking off more boxes in "lawful" than not, and I still qualify as lawful and so can still level as a Monk as much as I please, even though I'm not being even slightly disciplined in direct contradiction to the only aspect of lawfulness that the Monk class actually gives a damn about.
TLDR; the designers made a mistake and misassigned the lawful requirement to the Monk. Yes, the Monk should be disciplined. Yes, discipline is a trait that falls more towards lawful than anywhere else. That doesn't mean Monks should be stuck at "lawful only" or even "any nonchaotic".
i'd also say its probably a "lab example" more than a play example as you're assuming you can metagame your lawful acts with a chaotic lack of discipline into remaining lawful rather than falling to neutral. Which abadar would be fine with, but your monk class wouldnt.
i'd also say its probably a "lab example" more than a play example as you're assuming you can metagame your lawful acts with a chaotic lack of discipline into remaining lawful rather than falling to neutral. Which abadar would be fine with, but your monk class wouldnt.You mean implicitly. Explicitly would mean somewhere there's text that reads "Lawful doesn't mean disciplined"Okay, let me ask you this. If I'm playing a Monk (not a Martial Artist, but a Ki-using Monk), then fluffwise, I should be disciplined. Except, Abadar is all about respecting the law, respecting authority, putting the needs of the group or civilization at large ahead of your own individual needs. He is not about the discipline. He isn't opposed to it, and also being disciplined doesn't hurt with regards to adhering to everything else that the lawful side of the law-chaos axis cares about, but it's incidental.
Ergo, if I'm playing a Monk of Abadar and adhering to everything lawful that Abadar cares about and specifically NOT being disciplined, then I am still checking off more boxes in "lawful" than not, and I still qualify as lawful and so can still level as a Monk as much as I please, even though I'm not being even slightly disciplined in direct contradiction to the only aspect of lawfulness that the Monk class actually gives a damn about.
TLDR; the designers made a mistake and misassigned the lawful requirement to the Monk. Yes, the Monk should be disciplined. Yes, discipline is a trait that falls more towards lawful than anywhere else. That doesn't mean Monks should be stuck at "lawful only" or even "any nonchaotic".
What I'm picking up from these is that the Law/Chaos axis are the most confused and/or debated.
Does using "Ordered" address any of these?
How would you see these addressed? And, can we draw examples from any existing sourcebooks? The Champions line, maybe? These were suggested, but I don't have the books in front of me atm.
Monks, barbarians, druids et all should probably just have their own anathema section as well.
Monks require some level of discipline and self denial plus regular practice
Barbarians probably should avoid trappings of civilization or be renamed berserker
druids have had probably the best "dont do this" selection in pf1 anyway
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i'd also say its probably a "lab example" more than a play example as you're assuming you can metagame your lawful acts with a chaotic lack of discipline into remaining lawful rather than falling to neutral. Which abadar would be fine with, but your monk class wouldnt.You mean implicitly. Explicitly would mean somewhere there's text that reads "Lawful doesn't mean disciplined"Okay, let me ask you this. If I'm playing a Monk (not a Martial Artist, but a Ki-using Monk), then fluffwise, I should be disciplined. Except, Abadar is all about respecting the law, respecting authority, putting the needs of the group or civilization at large ahead of your own individual needs. He is not about the discipline. He isn't opposed to it, and also being disciplined doesn't hurt with regards to adhering to everything else that the lawful side of the law-chaos axis cares about, but it's incidental.
Ergo, if I'm playing a Monk of Abadar and adhering to everything lawful that Abadar cares about and specifically NOT being disciplined, then I am still checking off more boxes in "lawful" than not, and I still qualify as lawful and so can still level as a Monk as much as I please, even though I'm not being even slightly disciplined in direct contradiction to the only aspect of lawfulness that the Monk class actually gives a damn about.
TLDR; the designers made a mistake and misassigned the lawful requirement to the Monk. Yes, the Monk should be disciplined. Yes, discipline is a trait that falls more towards lawful than anywhere else. That doesn't mean Monks should be stuck at "lawful only" or even "any nonchaotic".
If he's checking off EVERY aspect of lawful save one (the discipline bit), then I don't see how this is a "lab example" at all, other than to say that it's a textbook example of how the mechanics are not evoking the fluff they're meant to. Mechanically, a Monk must be lawful. Being lawful in almost every aspect does qualify and cannot not qualify. That the one aspect being ignored is the one aspect the Monk fluff cares about matters fluffwise but not mechanics-wise.
It's the functional equivalent of the Wizard class being advertised as the master of magic and the actual mechanics being a Wizard of Oz/Macgyver combination.
i'd also say its probably a "lab example" more than a play example as you're assuming you can metagame your lawful acts with a chaotic lack of discipline into remaining lawful rather than falling to neutral. Which abadar would be fine with, but your monk class wouldnt.You mean implicitly. Explicitly would mean somewhere there's text that reads "Lawful doesn't mean disciplined"Okay, let me ask you this. If I'm playing a Monk (not a Martial Artist, but a Ki-using Monk), then fluffwise, I should be disciplined. Except, Abadar is all about respecting the law, respecting authority, putting the needs of the group or civilization at large ahead of your own individual needs. He is not about the discipline. He isn't opposed to it, and also being disciplined doesn't hurt with regards to adhering to everything else that the lawful side of the law-chaos axis cares about, but it's incidental.
Ergo, if I'm playing a Monk of Abadar and adhering to everything lawful that Abadar cares about and specifically NOT being disciplined, then I am still checking off more boxes in "lawful" than not, and I still qualify as lawful and so can still level as a Monk as much as I please, even though I'm not being even slightly disciplined in direct contradiction to the only aspect of lawfulness that the Monk class actually gives a damn about.
TLDR; the designers made a mistake and misassigned the lawful requirement to the Monk. Yes, the Monk should be disciplined. Yes, discipline is a trait that falls more towards lawful than anywhere else. That doesn't mean Monks should be stuck at "lawful only" or even "any nonchaotic".
I mean, if you want a real example of an actual character then I can tell you about the Drunken Master Monk I played who was anything but disciplined as she enjoyed an excess of booze and women, but was still Lawful Good as she was essentially a fantasy cop who represented the legitimate authority of her nation's government to the best of her ability.
I would never claim that the way I played this character is the only way to play Lawful Good but it is one way. I'd consider it foolish to prescribe any alignment as this monolithic entity in which every member acts in the exact same way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that people dont like the concept of lawful representing a disciplined person
I think people don't like that EVERY disciplined person is thought of as lawful or that every lawful is required to be disciplined. Someone can be very disciplined about themselves while simultaneously having no issue lying, not keeping your word, only respecting strength, ignores others traditions, ect...
Picking a SINGLE trait out of an alignment and then requiring you take on all the other traits seems unfair and that's what people dislike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment will remain part of PF2e.
However, alignment concerns are often the lurking shadow behind other concerns--sort of the man behind the mask in some cases. This doesn't mean those other concerns aren't real. It does not. It does however, point to a common or added complication that "spurs" other concerns and may make them worse. Perhaps it's the cause of those concerns in the first place.
So let's talk alignment ideas, as well as areas that alignment can make muddy ingame. How can we address these?
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
1. Remove Law and Chaos, and have Good, Neutral, and Evil as primary alignments.
2. Rename Law into Order. This has tradition in fantasy literature. I know, folks are tired of me saying this!
3. ...your idea?Alignment is part of PF2e. Areas alignment affects that've caused concern enough though that a reader's natural response might be "oh gods not one more thread."
On the other hand, it's a familiar discussion. It's sort of like going into a painting class and going, "What is ART?" Alignment is kind of like that for us gamers.
What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
* Necromancy and evil undead
* Evil spell descriptors
* CG and NG paladin-like classes
* Evil races
* Goblins
* ...popcorn?...am I missing anything?
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
I don't really like alignment too much, especially if it's applied in a strict manner, but if I were to change it, rather than getting rid of law and chaos, I would rather get rid of the good and evil axis. I think that was actually how it was in the old d&d editions, right?What areas of the game does alignment cause you concern?
Mainly restrictions on classes. I understand that paladins need role play restrictions, but I feel like it should be something akin to knightly orders, their tenets, and their anathema that list actions that are taboo to those orders, not a vague moral description that encompass all paladins in the world. After all, not all paladin sects think alike.
On the whole lawful monk thing, I feel like the lawful-chaos axis is something that should reflect how you view how society should function, not your regiment and dedication to training. Besides, it's hard to view a drunken boxer martial artist as a lawful.
On a third note. While there are arguments on evil races carrying unsettling connotations of racism, I always felt that evil races would have no way of really sustaining itself without either collapsing on itself with all of the backstabbing, or getting ganged up on by an organized force of "good" races before they come into power, especially when the good races will probably have better infrastructure, health care, and what-not.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of the Paladin's alignment restrictions but I think the alignment restriction on Monks is truly absurd. Lawful people do not have a monopoly on philosophy and deep thought; the restriction makes it impossible to build Zaheer and the Red Lotus for example (and if you're going to argue that a group of anarchists are Lawful then you reaaally need to reconfigure your perception of alignment).
I like alignment just how it is. It is a simple tool to indicate behavioral patterns and cosmic allegiance. If you or your GM views alignment as some kind of straitjacket to inhibit player agency or to bludgeon people over the head with your particular take on morality, you are doing it very, very wrong. I've only had one GM ever tell me "you can't do that, it's against your alignment." I immediately left the table. Alignment does not prohibit certain actions. If it did, Paladins would never fall. Alignments have already been given very clear definitions describing how both mortals and Outsiders of a particular alignment will behave, and have disclaimers saying they have no real life equivalent. If you're seriously debating whether someone is Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil, the argument can be solved by opening up the rulebook and reading the description of each alignment. Alignment is both an indicator of personality and a description of cosmic forces. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a tool to be used, not a weapon with which to deprive others of enjoyment.
If you don't like alignment because you just don't like having that label put on you, that's fine. You can always houserule it out. But saying it's vague, unclear, restricting, unrealistic, limiting, and that imposing it on your players is worse than purposely giving rabies to children (actually heard someone say that once) is just untrue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you improve alignment in PF2e?
Remove it, and give characters actual motivations instead. People don't wander around deciding to be good or lawful or whatever. They're drawn in by self-established goals, education, relationships and desires. All those are tossed out for the alignment placeholder.
I agree completely, which is why it seems like a good idea to remind players coming to games already in progress that the "rules of alignment" are arbitrary and defined primarily by the Game Master, for the purposes of shaping a story they want to tell, in the tone that they want it told in. If the Game Master is dealing with issues of morals and ethics in a way that makes you uncomfortable, it is perfectly ok to step away from that game or table.
I'm not a fan of this- in fact I disagree rather completely. It takes the attitude that the GM's are encouraged to be arbitrary and everyone else is stuck as a silent witness to whatever weirdness the GM wants to foist on them (or they can leave). The point of rulebook is so everyone comes to the table with the same general understanding of what is involved in the game, not that sitting behind the screen makes the GM unquestionable.
It's a group activity with a common framework, not solo author time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
problems/debate over alignment are to me an essential unsolvable issue.
There are some problems in the existing game which are mechanically defined, say the caster-martial disparity, or the christmas tree effect. But alignment issues (and similar "flavor rules like anathemas) to me represent less a mechanical issue, and more a profound difference in gaming philosophy/rules interpretation/etc.
For some folks, they come at the game with rules as a general malleable guideline (RAI), and they enjoy the setting flavor that flavor backed mechanics bring. Most of the hypothetical "Paladin falls threads" are situations they are unlikely to experience, simply due to game style
RAW folks are likely to see alignment as a poorly defined straightjacket, because the reason for their existence is flavor, not rules balance or interactions. Alignment also tends to not have hard carefully set out parameters, since it's impossible to create a fixed rule for any possible event that happens during a game. Everything needs to be distilled into a yes or no format, otherwise the DM may exploit the rule, or they have to proceed with uncertainty.
Any solution to alignment is going to probably tick off each of those groups. The flavor folks will not want change and will see it as caving into the demands of "min-maxers/whatever the word of the day". Keep alignment and RAW folks will continue to pick at it and fine loopholes, or double standards, or any other issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks, barbarians, druids et all should probably just have their own anathema section as well.
Monks require some level of discipline and self denial plus regular practice
Barbarians probably should avoid trappings of civilization or be renamed berserker
druids have had probably the best "dont do this" selection in pf1 anyway
Drunken Master monks say 'Hi'. Probably Hungry Ghost Monks too. To say nothing of various pop culture monk references--the general cast of Ranma 1/2 leaps to mind.
And even without the Urban Barbarian archetype, Barbarians are not necessarily tribal, either. (And for that matter, tribal societies are often actually drowning in societal expectations, taboos, traditions, and highly formalized rituals...)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when we see a PF supplement for whatever Ranma is meant to be
Sure are a lot of adults posting to this children's site.
Barbarians probably should avoid trappings of civilization or be renamed berserker
Alignment isn't really one of my issues. But the name Barbarian is.
It really should be renamed berserker, because that's what the class does, goes into a berzerk rage. It's not a class about not living in cites, speaking a foreign language or not knowing which fork to use. But ultimately it's named that because Conan: The Barbarian was an influence and he had Barbarian right there in the title.
Now to find a better name for Monks that doesn't make all religious ascetics kung-fu masters. I suspect Francis of Assisi didn't actually know the quivering palm technique. Maybe Youxia, but that ties the class even tighter to Chinese culture while I think the current trend is to make the classes all a bit more culture neutral. Martial Artist violates the one word rule Piazo like to keep to for class names (although WarPriest and BloodRager cheat and jam two words together but I don't think MartialArtist works). And brawler is now something else.
As for the alignment of these two classes? I don't see any pressing need to keep them as non-lawful and lawful respectively. But it doesn't really bother me much either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My alignment wishlist:
(1) Reduce the mechanical importance of alignment as much as possible. Minimal class alignment restrictions, few spells that act differently depending on whether the person you cast them on is a nice guy...
(2) If you're going to have innate Evil separate from intentions, call it something different from what you'd use to refer to an evil act. Killing for fun is evil. Necromancy is Corruption, no matter your intent. That kind of thing.
(3) Paladins: Have a general Champion class that can be of any alignment. A True Paladin is a Champion who has taken certain clearly defined oaths. Anyone can sense a True Paladin with a touch, and tell whether or not they've violated their oaths. True Paladins don't get better class features, but they do get social advantages because people know they can be trusted.
(4) Clarify & reduce law / chaos. At the moment Law seems to be associated with self-discipline, respect for authority, following strict rules, respect for tradition, honor, logic... Chaos is associated with a casual attitude, distrust of authority, following your instincts, disrespect for tradition, dishonor, creativity...
That is too many associations. It seems like it forces characters into stereotypes.
(5) If good and evil are objective in this universe, list some things that are/aren't objectively evil acts. Is it OK for a good person to act as judge, jury and executioner to an evil foe? Either give an official yes or no, or remove alignment restrictions entirely. Because I've seen that debate too many times.