| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to help with the Playtest, but I also prefer morally ambiguous campaigns. Would it hurt the usefulness of my data if I were to throw out alignment for my campaign? I will still keep vows, anathema, and such, but not the alignment matrix.
It just feels like alignment offers to much of a guide. I just really do not like the alignment matrix. I feel that it make morality too simple.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, whether intentionally or not, they are basically telling people that their CG "I fight on the side that defends those in need" Gorumite clerics are just plain old heretics.
They were heretics in 1st edition by nature of being 1 step away from their Deity's alignment.
As for preventing Paladins of Asmodeus that sounds like an excellent reason in favor of keeping Alignment, it sets a nice groundwork.
No Paladins of Desna/Antipaladins of Asmodeus less so and I'll push for that to get fixed in the final product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just feels like alignment offers to much of a guide. I just really do not like the alignment matrix. I feel that it make morality too simple.How so? It lay the framework for Good and Evil and lets you fill in the gray.
That is part of the problem for me. I want to wallow in the gray area. I want villains that are the heroes in their own stories. People who are not good or evil, and are capable of being both. I am cautious about going too far, lest I open up the can of worms that comes with any alignment discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to help with the Playtest, but I also prefer morally ambiguous campaigns. Would it hurt the usefulness of my data if I were to throw out alignment for my campaign? I will still keep vows, anathema, and such, but not the alignment matrix.
No. If you are concerned about alignment spells - let the players pick whatever they think 'matches' their character - and then ignore it unless a spell is cast that mechanically interacts with what is on the sheet. Keep the Anethma and vows - but ignore the class restrictions.
Trust your players to put down what they think their characters 'inner code' is, and you will be rewarded with them being able to roleplay conflicted morality without the fear of GM punishment.
|
|
I want to help with the Playtest, but I also prefer morally ambiguous campaigns. Would it hurt the usefulness of my data if I were to throw out alignment for my campaign? I will still keep vows, anathema, and such, but not the alignment matrix.No. If you are concerned about alignment spells - let the players pick whatever they think 'matches' their character - and then ignore it unless a spell is cast that mechanically interacts with what is on the sheet. Keep the Anethma and vows - but ignore the class restrictions.
Trust your players to put down what they think their characters 'inner code' is, and you will be rewarded with them being able to roleplay conflicted morality without the fear of GM punishment.
Seeing as how Alignment is a part of the Playtest, I'm going to heavily advise against this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is part of the problem for me. I want to wallow in the gray area. I want villains that are the heroes in their own stories. People who are not good or evil, and are capable of being both. I am cautious about going too far, lest I open up the can of worms that comes with any alignment discussion.It just feels like alignment offers to much of a guide. I just really do not like the alignment matrix. I feel that it make morality too simple.How so? It lay the framework for Good and Evil and lets you fill in the gray.
And the Neutral Alignments don't allow for this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the thread subject "how vital is allignment ?" and not "Is alignment a good thing ?" ? Anyway...
Unfortunately, since some abilities and spells are still tied to alignment (Holy Smite...), I don't think you can really ditch them =/ At least try to play with them until the playtest is over (I'd love to ditch alignments too, but we need to be as little biased in our datas as possible).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, that is a grumble though.
Again - if you let players put an alignment on the sheet - all spells work as stated without any other effort.
Alignment isn't vital to the function of the game at all - outside of that single entry on a character sheet to make sure some spells interact correctly.
You don't have to playtest all aspects of the game to give valid feedback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far, my group did our character build session and the question came up essentially "Why can't I be a Paladin of Pharasma?"
Now my table has new and experienced players in equal parts, but the discussion ended up with the two sides.
On one end, nothing in Pharasma's anathema conflicts with the Paladin code anathemas. The literal only reason she can't be an option is because she's a Neutral deity. If alignment just wasn't a system then there wouldn't really be an issue.
And really, alignment isn't really even considered a system for any other character. It says, and I quote "In most cases, you can just change your character’s alignment to match your new discoveries about your character and continue playing." basically saying it's not what your sheet says but how you play.
This resulted in the other half of the discussion, that playing a Paladin locked you into a playstyle unlike any other class because it played by rules no one else had to. Druids have anathema based on their circle, clerics get them from their deities, paladins get them from code, deity, GM discretion, and playing strictly in one corner of the alignment system. They even have lines like "You aren’t obligated to play your character as this section describes, but it is a helpful guideline." yet from what we could tell there were only a handful of Paladins one could play.
So in terms of how vital alignment is. I like it as a guideline for the character you feel like playing, but really as a system unless you're a Paladin you can pretty much ignore it. And if you are a Paladin, it greatly limits play options compared to any other class.
|
|
Again - if you let players put an alignment on the sheet - all spells work as stated without any other effort.
Alignment isn't vital to the function of the game at all - outside of that single entry on a character sheet to make sure some spells interact correctly.
You don't have to playtest all aspects of the game to give valid feedback.
There's not playtesting, and then there's modifying, which is what not using alignment in the Playtest would be. Or rather, only asking on the fly when you get targeted by the spells you keep bringing up, which seems like a great deal more effort to come up with it each time rather than writing it down. As you said in your first line, doing so makes it work without any effort.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, my group did our character build session and the question came up essentially "Why can't I be a Paladin of Pharasma?"
What reason does Pharasma have to invest her power in a champion of righteousness, when the battle of good vs evil is not of interest to her?
There might not be any direct anathema conflict but that does not mean interests align, or that a Paladin would do much to aid her cause. Yes, Paladins are excellent at fighting undead, and oaths against undead doubtless exist, but Pharasma already has Clerics, Druids, Assassins and White Necromancers (users of the school that do not raise undead) as loyal servants who can better uphold the task of maintaining the cycle of life and death.
If you want to be a particularly righteous slayer of the undead, well, Sarenrae's got that niche covered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, my group did our character build session and the question came up essentially "Why can't I be a Paladin of Pharasma?"What reason does Pharasma have to invest her power in a champion of righteousness, when the battle of good vs evil is not of interest to her?
There might not be any direct anathema conflict but that does not mean interests align, or that a Paladin would do much to aid her cause. Yes, Paladins are excellent at fighting undead, and oaths against undead doubtless exist, but Pharasma already has Clerics, Druids, Assassins and White Necromancers (users of the school that do not raise undead) as loyal servants who can better uphold the task of maintaining the cycle of life and death.
If you want to be a particularly righteous slayer of the undead, well, Sarenrae's got that niche covered.
Someone who is emboldened to go into the lowest depths of hell and find souls stolen from the boneyard - mortal champions who are extreme outliers of the faith - yet serve a roll avoiding planar tenants that restrict psycopomps from acting. Things only mortals are allowed to do by divine agreement - and these champions are the only things that can save such souls.
It's really easy to create a story - when you aren't limiting yourself from the get go.
|
|
Someone who is emboldened to go into the lowest depths of hell and find souls stolen from the boneyardSo far, my group did our character build session and the question came up essentially "Why can't I be a Paladin of Pharasma?"What reason does Pharasma have to invest her power in a champion of righteousness, when the battle of good vs evil is not of interest to her?
There might not be any direct anathema conflict but that does not mean interests align, or that a Paladin would do much to aid her cause. Yes, Paladins are excellent at fighting undead, and oaths against undead doubtless exist, but Pharasma already has Clerics, Druids, Assassins and White Necromancers (users of the school that do not raise undead) as loyal servants who can better uphold the task of maintaining the cycle of life and death.
If you want to be a particularly righteous slayer of the undead, well, Sarenrae's got that niche covered.
Tangent, but this would be more a Daemon's thing, Hell doesn't mess with the process, too lucrative for them.
So far, my group did our character build session and the question came up essentially "Why can't I be a Paladin of Pharasma?"What reason does Pharasma have to invest her power in a champion of righteousness, when the battle of good vs evil is not of interest to her?
There might not be any direct anathema conflict but that does not mean interests align, or that a Paladin would do much to aid her cause. Yes, Paladins are excellent at fighting undead, and oaths against undead doubtless exist, but Pharasma already has Clerics, Druids, Assassins and White Necromancers (users of the school that do not raise undead) as loyal servants who can better uphold the task of maintaining the cycle of life and death.
If you want to be a particularly righteous slayer of the undead, well, Sarenrae's got that niche covered.
Sarenrae
"Edicts destroy the spawn of Rovagug, protect allies, provide aid to the sick and wounded, seek and allow redemptionAnathema create undead, fail to strike down evil, lie, succumb to darkness"
Pharasma
"Edicts strive to understand ancient prophecies, destroy undead, lay bodies to rest
Anathema create undead, desecrate a corpse, rob a tomb"
Saying "well you can just pick Sarenrae" is not an answer, that ties back to the arguement I was making. Needless limitations on the character you are allowed to play due to the alignment system. Again, a system that for every other character basically does not apply.
Your example carries "white necromancers" in it, which is a diverse character option for it's type. Another point I was making, that you can play whatever or whoever you want, unless you want to play a Paladin. Then in the theoretical videogame of the Playtest all the options get greyed out and you're told "this is how you get to play".
You make the arguement like Pharasma is real and should have more say about the player's character than the player. And throughout Pathfinder 1's in depth lore there was never anything to say "diety x has no need for Paladins". The theoretical Pharasma Paladin carries a different belief system, but that by nature of following her edicts and anathema would make them someone who aids their cause and maintains the cycle of life and death.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is part of the problem for me. I want to wallow in the gray area. I want villains that are the heroes in their own stories. People who are not good or evil, and are capable of being both. I am cautious about going too far, lest I open up the can of worms that comes with any alignment discussion.It just feels like alignment offers to much of a guide. I just really do not like the alignment matrix. I feel that it make morality too simple.How so? It lay the framework for Good and Evil and lets you fill in the gray.
I don't feel that alignment matrix excludes that. Nobody is exclusively one thing. Alignment is not a straight-jacket. It is an indicator of how you will react more often than not - an overview if you will.
Half of the problems with alignment occur when people try to use it as more than it actually is, or set restrictions that do not exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run a setting in which alignment in a metaphysical sense does not exist because I like ethical and metaphysical questions to be muddier, but I still require Paladins to be "Lawful Good" since "you are the morally upstanding hero who always does the right thing in the right way" defines the Paladin.
Like if you want a morally dubious, gritty, and kind of bleak story for your game, don't bring a shining beacon of morality and proper conduct full stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to help with the Playtest, but I also prefer morally ambiguous campaigns. Would it hurt the usefulness of my data if I were to throw out alignment for my campaign? I will still keep vows, anathema, and such, but not the alignment matrix.
I'm not a fan of alignment either, but for the sake of the Playtest I suggest going along with the Dev's wishes. I suspect you won't even notice since they playtest scenario probably doesn't stray into moral ambiguity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I run a setting in which alignment in a metaphysical sense does not exist because I like ethical and metaphysical questions to be muddier, but I still require Paladins to be "Lawful Good" since "you are the morally upstanding hero who always does the right thing in the right way" defines the Paladin.
Like if you want a morally dubious, gritty, and kind of bleak story for your game, don't bring a shining beacon of morality and proper conduct full stop.
If the guy wants to do something - it's his game to do so. I certainly won't call either (yours, or his) table wrong, I'm unsure why you need to call his so.
The game certainly doesn't require the alignment section to work - I mean I get the ravenous defending of alignment when it's being asked to remove it from the game entirely - but this was a question about his table, not yours - the paladin class doesn't break if the alignment section goes away - it may not be to your personal like, or flavor - but the class won't break.
I'm pretty sure if you change the word evil to enemy in the Paladin class writeup the game would work just fine, even if the Paladin might be very slightly buffed - on the rare occasion that foes were neutral or good.
Heck I'd be interested in that kind of playtest feedback (anything actually break?) for sure.
Whoever moved this thread - it's in the wrong forum. It was ok in general but it's a GM thread not a player thread - it shouldn't be in the player forum at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Little update on my statement...
After reading the AP's first part's survey, I spotted the choice "I do not play with alignment" for the question about your players' alignment. So I take back what I said : apparently the devs don't necesseraly need you to play with alignments :)