| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I can't because both games have decided that in the name of balance animal companions must be useless.
Off topic I know, but this is wildly wrong. Animal companions are both very useful and very fun, to my table's experience.
You seem to be approaching this game from the utmost of min maxed, locked in, one best way to play sort of approach. That's real unfortunate. Neutrality as a defensive measure is incredibly niche and until this thread, I've never seen anyone try to talk themselves into an alignment to be a tiny bit safer from a very, very small subset of enemies.
Same with an animal companion. Does the end game math crunch show that you're generally better to spend actions on yourself? Maybe, I don't know. Not really important. Companions add a wide variety of gameplay and are plenty viable the whole time unless you want them to be your tank or your primary source of damage output.
Anyways. Optimal is not a necessity in this game. Legendary proficiency is not the baseline in this game--arguably master is above average as well.
I would like to play a game of D&D or Pathfinder where I am a character inspired by the Hunter class of World of Warcraft: a ranged character with a melee pet.
But I can't because both games have decided that in the name of balance animal companions must be useless.
As for the topic at hand, I guess I'm just surprised that anyone could think it fine to just make Neutral better. It appears this was intentional by Paizo, which I could never have guessed - in almost every other area there simply isn't one choice clearly better than the other, with no appreciable downside.
Huh.
But ranged ranger with an animal companion is great...
Precision ranger with bow + pet is the most optimal ranged build...
Legitimately "True Neutral" characters seem poorly motivated to go on adventures in my mind.
In general, choosing alignment for mechanical benefits is also an alien concept- the mechanical consequences of my characters alignment are something to consider after the character is written.
As a GM, this is a case where I'd actually take action. If a player suggested that they were choosing an alignment to avoid alignment based damage and effects, I'd explain to them that's not really how things are supposed to work, and that alignment based effects aren't so common as to be an even vaguely reasonable consideration for character building.
If they persisted, I'd just consider them to be the alignment that their actual at the table actions indicated they were. If they actually acted TN? OK whatever. If not? I'm making a call.
Normally I'm pretty tolerant of how a player justifies to me they're actually CN and not straight CE - but this is a metagame bridge too far for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legitimately "True Neutral" characters seem poorly motivated to go on adventures in my mind.
"Your character has a good alignment if they consider the happiness of others above their own and work selflessly to assist others, even those who aren’t friends and family. They are also good if they value protecting others from harm, even if doing so puts the character in danger. Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain, and even more so if they enjoy inflicting harm. If your character falls somewhere in the middle, they’re likely neutral on this axis."
"Many characters are in the middle, obeying the law or following a code of conduct in many situations, but bending the rules when the situation requires it. If your character is in the middle, they are neutral on this axis."
So true neutral is someone that doesn't go out of their way to help or harm anyone and follows the rules unless the situation warrants it. IMO, that fits WAY more people than people that actively help/harm people or compulsively follow/break the rules. Lets make a true neutral once: Amy thinks of adventuring as a job: she in it for the reward and fame. She take quests not because they are for the good of anyone but because they are the job. She does what she needs to do to finish her job but tries not to stand out as a rule breaker [jail is bad for business].
Or tammy that started adventuring because bandits destroyed her village or jill the gnome that adventures to stave off boredom. I see PLENTY of reasons neutral people adventure.
If a player suggested that they were choosing an alignment to avoid alignment based damage and effects, I'd explain to them that's not really how things are supposed to work, and that alignment based effects aren't so common as to be an even vaguely reasonable consideration for character building.
If that's happened, it's be a good reason for them not to ever talk about it in front of you again and just write neutral on their sheets if they really want to do it. If they want to be a nice person, that doesn't mean they have to list 'good' on their sheet: you can be nice and also value your own safety...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, a character isn't Neutral just because they write that on their sheet and declare it so - the character is Neutral (or whatever) because they act Neutral on a regular basis.
If they end up taking a lot of jobs that result in them doing beneficial things for people, and don't victimize people or do legitimately evil things while doing so, they're not REALLY in the middle, are they? If they pursue some sort of "karmic balance" and do evil things to "balance" the good, that's not really Neutral either - unlike what video games present, reap morality isn't about a number of alignment points on a scale.
Also, Good characters can definitely care about their own safety - they may just also be willing to compromise that safety to help others.
And its not really in the Spirit of most role-playing game campaigns to sit on the sidelines and watch people burn to death out of concern for your characters safety...
A player can write down anything they like on their character sheet, but their Holy Avenger isn't any more legit for having been written there than a bogus alignment that doesn't reflect the actual events or actions occurring in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, a character isn't Neutral just because they write that on their sheet and declare it so - the character is Neutral (or whatever) because they act Neutral on a regular basis.
Yes and my point is that most players actions fall under neutral: doing nice things doesn't force you to be good and being selfish doesn't force you to be evil.
"Your character has a good alignment if they consider the happiness of others above their own and work selflessly to assist others, even those who aren’t friends and family. They are also good if they value protecting others from harm, even if doing so puts the character in danger.": if the character considers the happiness of THEMSELVES equal to that of others [instead of others being above]they are neutral. If they take care of themselves instead of selflessly forging forward, they are neutral. If they find their own safety important and weigh that when protecting others, they are neutral.
If they end up taking a lot of jobs that result in them doing beneficial things for people, and don't victimize people or do legitimately evil things while doing so, they're not REALLY in the middle, are they?
Nothing FORCES them to move from neutral: a mobster might help out the community on a daily basis but if push comes to shove, they'll make someone that opposes them 'swim with the fishes'. Just because they pick nice jobs doesn't mean that the character isn't willing to cut corners if need be.
If they pursue some sort of "karmic balance" and do evil things to "balance" the good, that's not really Neutral either - unlike what video games present, reap morality isn't about a number of alignment points on a scale.
You are looking at it wrong: good, evil, lawful and chaotic are extremes: someone that almost always acts one way. Someone with 'normal' personalities actually values their own safety and doesn't go out of their way to oppress others: neutral.
Also, Good characters can definitely care about their own safety - they may just also be willing to compromise that safety to help others.
Yes, but a neutral person can care JUST as much about other peoples safety, just that they factor in their own safety into it and at least value themselves as much as others.
And its not really in the Spirit of most role-playing game campaigns to sit on the sidelines and watch people burn to death out of concern for your characters safety...
That is NOT what it means. Firemen don't run into a burning building without a plan and without any chance of survival. They factor their own safety into it. They make a calculated risk analysis and that is something a neutral person can do to. It's just a matter of what percentage of risk you are willing to take.
A player can write down anything they like on their character sheet, but their Holy Avenger isn't any more legit for having been written there than a bogus alignment that doesn't reflect the actual events or actions occurring in the game.
No matter if you write good or neutral, you can use a Holy Avenger. If you act good or neutral, you can use one.
Basically, I think you are using outdated definitions for alignment. Neutral covers a LOT of ground now.
Well I think alignment in PF2 is "less bad" than in PF1 but I still stick to my home rule for alignment...
It's simple, for example let's take from Neutral to Good there's three state : you're Neutral, Half-Good (you're "a bit Good"), and you're Good.
Neutral is the Neutral Alignment
"Half Good" (equivalent ot Somewhat Good in the GMG) is you choosing a Good alignment but not wanting to go all out, this don't count as being eligible for a class that need you to be Good
You got only half the benefit or malus tied to your alignment rounded down min 1 (example aligned damage) or a +/- 1 degree if applicable (For example a +1 degree on Divine Wrath and a -1 degree on Divine Decree). And there's also a line difference in the Detect Alignment table, meaning you would only register with a Faint Aura at level 11 and none at level 9.
You are not as tied to the typical behavior of the Good alignment than real Good aligned people.
Good is the Good alignment. Only when you need to be of a given alignment do you really have to take this, or for rp reason if you really want to be totally Good.
My players really like this, they can choose to be "Good" without as much disadvantages though to the cost of certain advantages... And I apply this rule to NPC too... ;)
If I want to play a Druid because I like animal companions, does Paizo need to fix the game to make other classes more appealing to me?A better analogy would be that you want to play a Druid because you like animal companions, but there's some feature of the game that actively discourages you from using animal companions and will punish you for playing a character that uses one and on some level you have to weigh whether the tax the game is levying against you is worth it or not. Mind you this isn't some game balance feature, it's just something that's going to make your day worse every now and then because you wanted to use an animal companion.
The analogy was I could play a Druid because I like Animal Companions in the same way I could play a Neutral character because I like immunity to alignment damage. Access to things I like decreases when I make choices that don't include those things. I'm not bothered that an Evil Thief doesn't have access to the same things a Neutral Druid does, and vice versa.
That said, I've little interest in building a character's personality to specifically cause behavior that fits a certain alignment that provides a small DR benefit. This "problem" is one that doesn't bother me personally.
You are looking at it wrong: good, evil, lawful and chaotic are extremes: someone that almost always acts one way. Someone with 'normal' personalities actually values their own safety and doesn't go out of their way to oppress others: neutral.
Where you draw the line between alignments is a matter of judgement, IMO, and I would not draw those lines at the extremes. Or rather, I'd say that Adventurers in a Pathfinder setting are not normal, average people, with most being neutral subsistence farmers.
When a town hall starts on fire, I think most PC characters rush in to help out. When a fiery fiend threatens to destroy the rest of the town, I think most PC's jump in to fight. As a GM, I'd rule that such actions makes those PC's good, even if the players declare their good-filled lives are motivated by selfish desires.
I'll also go on record here to say that these discussions, and the complete ambiguity of real world morality, are why I dislike alignment systems. It is goofy and irritating to try to jam a singular label on a character with complex motivations. No one is purely altruistic. Everyone has multiple motivations. Everyone is balancing many considerations.
Where you draw the line between alignments is a matter of judgement, IMO, and I would not draw those lines at the extremes.
I'm looking at the specific wording on alignment in the core rules: they draw the lines be default pretty much to the extreme. If your judgment in a game different from what's listed in the rules it's outside of what I'm talking about.
"Your character has a good alignment if they consider the happiness of others above their own and work selflessly to assist others, even those who aren’t friends and family. They are also good if they value protecting others from harm, even if doing so puts the character in danger. Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain, and even more so if they enjoy inflicting harm. If your character falls somewhere in the middle, they’re likely neutral on this axis."
"Many characters are in the middle, obeying the law or following a code of conduct in many situations, but bending the rules when the situation requires it. If your character is in the middle, they are neutral on this axis."
As you can see, "obeying the law or following a code of conduct in many situations" doesn't make you lawful: it's when you do it ALL the time. Protecting someone doesn't make you good, doing so because you value their well being more than yours. That's what the alignment section says.
PS: also, the alignment section makes it clear intent matters. If you put out the fire because it's where all your stuff is isn't a good act. A person that kills a fiend because of fame, the thrill or reward isn't doing it for goods. Healing an orphan so you can get them in good condition for the slave auction isn't a good act...
I'm looking at the specific wording on alignment in the core rules: they draw the lines be default pretty much to the extreme. If your judgment in a game different from what's listed in the rules it's outside of what I'm talking about.
"Your character has a good alignment if they consider the happiness of others above their own and work selflessly to assist others, even those who aren’t friends and family. They are also good if they value protecting others from harm, even if doing so puts the character in danger. Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain, and even more so if they enjoy inflicting harm. If your character falls somewhere in the middle, they’re likely neutral on this axis."
"Many characters are in the middle, obeying the law or following a code of conduct in many situations, but bending the rules when the situation requires it. If your character is in the middle, they are neutral on this axis."
As you can see, "obeying the law or following a code of conduct in many situations" doesn't make you lawful: it's when you do it ALL the time. Protecting someone doesn't make you good, doing so because you value their well being more than yours. That's what the alignment section says.
PS: also, the alignment section makes it clear intent matters. If you put out the fire because it's where all your stuff is isn't a good act. A person that kills a fiend because of fame, the thrill or reward isn't doing it for goods. Healing an orphan so you can get them in good condition for the slave auction isn't a good act...
Where we disagree is in the "ALL the time". If you were to always put the safety and happiness of all other above your own in all ways under all circumstances and in all contexts, you would starve to death. If you are neutral if you ever eat instead of giving your food to someone else, how can anyone be good?
What does it mean to follow the law in "many situations" but not when "the situations requires" "bending the rules"? Am I neutral if I follow all laws, except sometimes I violate curfew by a few minutes because I was volunteering at the police fundraiser? Am I lawful if I follow the laws at work or running errands, but I occasionally kill a neighbor because they don't know how to be quiet when people are TRYING TO SLEEP?
I'd say these things require judgement calls. You can "consider the happiness of others above their own and work selflessly to assist others" without doing it all the time. In fact, you simply can't do it all the time. So it is a matter of judging where to draw those lines. And I think most of us do this by comparing character actions against real world expectations. A "good" person is one who spends significantly more time and effort helping others than an average person. They may spend an evening a week helping at a food bank. They may spend their time and money making gifts for their co-workers. They may be likely to help you move to a new place. But they still eat and sleep and buy things for themselves.
As for intent, I'm trying to say that intent demonstrates itself though actions over time. Killing fiends can make you famous, yes. So can killing babies down at the orphanage. If you largely do good things to become famous, it indicates you you want to be famous AND you are good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you largely do good things to become famous, it indicates you you want to be famous AND you are good.
So the end result is all that matters? The ends justifies the means? I just can't agree with that. Saving a town from goblins because you REALLY hate them and you want to butcher every one you can find isn't good at all: saving the town was a side affect of killing goblins. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. If a psychopathic killer happens to fight for a good cause because it gives them a steady supply of creatures to kill, I don't see it altering their alignment in the least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The analogy was I could play a Druid because I like Animal Companions in the same way I could play a Neutral character because I like immunity to alignment damage.
And if animal companion feats required your character to have, I dunno, blue hair?
I'm sure we'd have people insisting that their character's hair color isn't important so they're fine with it (and !@#% the people who do care, I guess). Or that it's traditional to have blue-haired animal companion users and therefore an important legacy feature. But would there be players who might be turned off or frustrated by that decision? Should a player have to worry about changing their character's hair color in order to take the feat they want to?
Is that a really stupid example? Absolutely. But so is tying mechanical rewards and punishments to a character's personality.
If you largely do good things to become famous, it indicates you you want to be famous AND you are good.So the end result is all that matters? The ends justifies the means? I just can't agree with that. Saving a town from goblins because you REALLY hate them and you want to butcher every one you can find isn't good at all: saving the town was a side affect of killing goblins. It wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. If a psychopathic killer happens to fight for a good cause because it gives them a steady supply of creatures to kill, I don't see it altering their alignment in the least.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
Let's say you are a sword for hire. Someone asks you to protect a bunch of orphans, and you do. Ok, maybe you are good. Maybe you are neutral, and just working for the money. But, maybe you are BOTH good and working for money. Your real alignment can be sussed out over time, by looking at many decisions.
Do you accept the next job, to kill the orphans? If yes, then it looks like you might genuinely be unconcerned about helping or harming other people. You are neutral.
But, if your long term pattern of mercenary jobs is one that protects life and the well-being of others, you are good.
Because a person can be motivated by more than one thing. You can want money and to protect others. You can want fame and to make others happy. You can want to be the greatest healer in the world because you want money, fame, AND to do Good things. Being motivated by money or fame does not mean you are not motivated by good or evil or law or chaos.
Sure, I accept there are hypothetical edge cases where someone ends up consistently inadvertently helping others as an unintended consequence of satiating their blood lust on some other group. But I was responding to the idea that everyone outside of the extremes is Neutral. I'm responding to the idea that to be Good or Evil or Lawful or Chaotic, a character has to be Good or Evil or Lawful or Chaotic "All the time". I say they need to be those things on balance. A baker who spends a few evenings per week making food to give to the homeless is Good, even if most of their time is spent performing utterly Neutral activities like mixing ingredients or working the oven.
But, if your long term pattern of mercenary jobs is one that protects life and the well-being of others, you are good.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense in terms of PC's. If the jobs the Dm gives you are all good, it's not you making a conscious choice to only take those jobs but that those ore the only jobs to take. If your AP you're playing is based around what you'd think of as good, you either play along or you wreck the game. Or you're going along with the rest of the party.
A baker who spends a few evenings per week making food to give to the homeless is Good, even if most of their time is spent performing utterly Neutral activities like mixing ingredients or working the oven.
IMO, this is the description of a nice neutral person. A LN cleric of Alseta (The Welcomer) [LN] takes a few evenings a week making food for the homeless and is acting 100% neutral. Their edicts are "guide others through transitions, treat all other beings with courtesy and respect" so it's totally in line to feed the homeless in an effort to help them through the transition to a more productive lifestyle. Respect, courtesy and helping others... Neutral, not good.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense in terms of PC's. If the jobs the Dm gives you are all good, it's not you making a conscious choice to only take those jobs but that those ore the only jobs to take. If your AP you're playing is based around what you'd think of as good, you either play along or you wreck the game. Or you're going along with the rest of the party.
Hmmm. In my experience, it is the GM's job to present opportunities that fit within the motivations of the characters. Or rather, there needs to be mutual cooperation between the players and GM. If the GM is going to run a game where the characters have to constantly do good things, the players should be creating good characters. But I think jobs are rarely so prescribed. Yes, you might be hired to hunt down a criminal who has threatened the town, but you can also choose to torture witnesses, kill the guard to get at knowledgeable banker, help the begger along the way, etc.
IMO, this is the description of a nice neutral person. A LN cleric of Alseta (The Welcomer) [LN] takes a few evenings a week making food for the homeless and is acting 100% neutral. Their edicts are "guide others through transitions, treat all other beings with courtesy and respect" so it's totally in line to feed the homeless in an effort to help them through the transition to a more productive lifestyle. Respect, courtesy and helping others... Neutral, not good.
This baker is giving up his time and money. He is putting the happiness of others before his own, and working selflessly to assist others. These are Good things. The question is how often does one have to do Good things to be Good. Surely once/year isn't enough. Surely never eating nor sleeping is too much to require. The line has to be somewhere in between, and I think reasonable people can draw that in different places.
Anyway, I've enjoyed this discussion. Thanks.
The analogy was I could play a Druid because I like Animal Companions in the same way I could play a Neutral character because I like immunity to alignment damage.And if animal companion feats required your character to have, I dunno, blue hair?
I'm sure we'd have people insisting that their character's hair color isn't important so they're fine with it (and !@#% the people who do care, I guess). Or that it's traditional to have blue-haired animal companion users and therefore an important legacy feature. But would there be players who might be turned off or frustrated by that decision? Should a player have to worry about changing their character's hair color in order to take the feat they want to?
Is that a really stupid example? Absolutely. But so is tying mechanical rewards and punishments to a character's personality.
I guess you and I won't come to an agreement on this. I would certainly complain if Animal Companions and/or alignment damage immunity were tied to hair color. But I don't think that has any bearing on this discussion, as I see alignment as non-arbitrary, and non-trivial in the Pathfinder universe.
I see changing and choosing hair color as unimportant. I see choices between Good and Evil (and Neutral) to be very important. I don't even know the hair colors of the characters in my current game. I surely know who values the lives and happiness of others, and who isn't as concerned. The alignment considerations of some Deities are core to a couple character's identities. I'm not sure any of the gods care about anyone's hair colors. I believe there are entire planes of existence tied to alignment. Are there others tied to hair color?
I'm fine with tying abilities to concepts core to the Pathfinder universe. I'm don't think those ties should be removed if they can't also be tied to something like hair color.
And I don't even like alignments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Avoiding neutrality can also help you use certain items. Celestial Armor is the most obvious example, but there are others. And unlike your class build choices, you don't always get a choice for the best equipment that gets dropped for you.
It is not much of a benefit, but then again I don't think taking evil damage is that much of a drawback.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That makes it the best Detect Evil cantrip in the game. *shrug*I had missed that alignment damage only harmed the opposite alignment.
That makes Divine Lance a lot less useful.
This is some serious necromancy... Must have something to do with the Book of the Dead coming out... :P
This is some serious necromancy... Must have something to do with the Book of the Dead coming out... :PThat makes it the best Detect Evil cantrip in the game. *shrug*I had missed that alignment damage only harmed the opposite alignment.
That makes Divine Lance a lot less useful.
Beat me to it.