What steps you might ask?
Well, its of cause the cranky old bugbear of forum threads…
Yes, I'm talking about Alignment.
But honestly, instead of going all rant-y about, that dead horse still being around, well, I thought I would thank the developers for removing it from the places they have.
You know to give them a little pat on the back instead of just angry bile.
So, with no further ado, thank you dear developers for removing Alignment restrictions from the Barbarians, Druids and Monks.
Yea, yea I know Anathems...but seriously they don't carry half the baggage that Alignment does, so its still a win in my book.
*Gives a thumbs up*
Looking forward to the last few vestage classes getting a similar treatment (you know who you holy-text-thumpers are!).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like alignment, a lot. Though I realized I like the phil 101 conversations and the cosmic implications more than I do the class impact. I approve the direction of removing the mechanical hardlining of classes, while keeping the alignment system mechanically. Alignment is best not used as a balancing mechanic. /signed
I like alignment, a lot. Though I realized I like the phil 101 conversations and the cosmic implications more than I do the class impact. I approve the direction of removing the mechanical hardlining of classes, while keeping the alignment system mechanically. Alignment is best not used as a balancing mechanic. /signed
Yea, I can respect that.
Even if I might not completely agree, I can probably see where you're coming from.Alignment is definitely at its best when its keep as far from the inner mechanical aspects of a system as possible.
Funnily enough, I have nothing against having a discussion about cosmological concerns, philosophy or the like.
I really think my biggest beef with Alignment is that ultimately, it always seem that its the setting "labeling" your character (or more precisely their moral and ethical outlook and actions) with what they are. Its this weird need to continually fit any set of actions, choices and behaviours into one of 9 pre-defined boxes, that doesn't sit with me very well. I simply feel that the player of said character should at least have the wiggle room to influence their character's "boxing" somehow…
which usually leads me to slacken, remove or change the mechanical working of the Alignment system (ie descriptors, Alignment requirements, "the one-step rule", stuff like that).
But hey, I'm not saying that's how everyone feels. It might just be me (and the people I game with ^^'), so if things work differently for you…Well its fine by me.
I'm a fan of alignment, and find that it's a useful shorthand. Often it's served me well as a point of reference to keep players in character, and all it really takes is me saying something like "Your character is Lawful Good. Are you sure that's what you want to do?"
In my experience (and opinion), players who "hate" playing paladins, and hate paladins, are the ones who want all the paladin's awesome abilities, but don't want to be bothered with the alignment restrictions.
They're first-person-shooter power murder-hobo gamers.
|
|
I think thats a gross generalization of paladin players and their issues. One of the most interesting things about alignment, is putting it to the test. Most classes are free to toe the line or diverge wildly in an organic fashion. The pally is rooted in LG with mechanically punishable affects. I think that makes a paladin challenging in a unique way, but its also a restrictive way. It also requires 2+ people to be of certain mind as to what alignment and actions mean.
For most folks, thats a bad challenge on two fronts. Combine it with extra power as a balancing element and its all around bad design. The pally should be more open or it should be demoted to a prestige class if it must remain so restrictive, IMHO.
I agree with Pan, honestly there's nothing about this playtest thats really stood out to me but I was glad to see that alignment restrictions were removed and got this idea to play a chaotic good scarlet rose grey maiden paladin of freedom based of my 1st edition pfs battle herald focused on defending her allies but when i went back to check Paladin my heart sunk to see that it was indeed restricted...so much for that...guess gnome titan mauler it is...lol
…a point of reference to keep players in character, and all it really takes is me saying something like "Your character is Lawful Good. Are you sure that's what you want to do?"
Funnily enough, my character's answer would around 80% of the time be a resounding "Yes!".
Whether the party were trying to sneak in the BBEG's bedroom window catching him engaged in coitus with his mistress/wife/stable-boy, carrying out battlefield executions after a large battle or just discussing what to order at the local tavern.The general concept of Alignment completely blocking out certain behaviours, ideas or choices is, well, strange to me.
(As for the rest of the time...around 15% of the time I'm kidding, and the last 5%, I'm likely distracted)
Then again, I usually don't play characters with poor impulse control, extreme or overtly murderous tendencies or lengthy moral preaching.
Sure, I'll save local village/kingdom/priest/whatever, you know, for fame, glory and fortunes…
its just that, well, I'm one man/elf/gnome/whatever (and the rest of the party of course), and if I'm going to save Avistan from the demons of the World Wound, I might just have to raise your ancestor from beyond the grave to you know make it possible?!
Look its also my soul on the line here! I'm just counting on the fact that when my judgement come, that the Gods, well, take everything into consideration…
Who knows? Maybe one of em will take pity on me, securing a "more comfortable spot" in the afterlife.
In my experience (and opinion), players who "hate" playing paladins, and hate paladins, are the ones who want all the paladin's awesome abilities, but don't want to be bothered with the alignment restrictions.
They're first-person-shooter power murder-hobo gamers.
Let me cut the silly act here and be frank for a moment.
You might believe this, and what's more you have every right to do so.What I believe though, is that its this kind of smug elitism, that really turns some people away from playing Paladins. I mean, do we really need moral gate-keeping to keep players from exploring their dreamt-up character-concepts?
... One of the most interesting things about alignment, is putting it to the test. Most classes are free to toe the line or diverge wildly in an organic fashion…
Bingo!
This man (hopefully I'm correct, if not, my apologies) here gets it.When I'm on player side of the GM-screen, my characters usually ends up in one of two ways.
If the GM is rather laissez-faire about Alignment (tracking, actions, descriptors...the works in other words), my character(s) gets two letter stamped on it at character creations and that's the end of it.
If the GM on the other hand is fairly into the minutia of the Alignment mechanics, my character(s) will usually go through 2-3 maybe even 4 Alignments over a campaign, all according to the particular story told.
Why? Well people can change, especially from external pressures.
Maybe a loved one dies? Maybe she/he losses faith in his cause? Maybe all the bloodshed finally gets to her/him? Maybe She/he gets an epiphany…
Or maybe its all there in her/his backstory in the first place. She/he was a drunkard just looking to off themselves in some spectacular fashion, when she/he through his/her travels with a bunch of strangers find a new zest for life? Maybe the only moments in his/her life, where she/he feel's truly alive is when, through the adrenalin haze, his/her weapon rips into flesh and bone of some terrible creature capable of cleaving him/her in twine with a single claw strike?
The pally should be more open or it should be demoted to a prestige class if it must remain so restrictive, IMHO.
Preach it brother!
I've been advocating for the very same thing(s) for about as long as I've been the these boards.