| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One, you're assuming alignments get chosen rather than determined by the actions of the PC. I'd also place a player's desire to play a specific personality above any minor mechanical bonus like this.
Two, yes, for non-divine PCs, it's a meager benefit, but for divine PCs you're cutting yourself off from being able to do alignment damage. Alignment damage (esp. Good vs. Fiends) can be significant.
Three, some specific effects, like Divine Decree or Divine Wrath, still do some damage to TNs which could've been prevented if you matched alignments with aforesaid divine PC. Auras like Aura of Faith require you to be Good to take advantage of them.
Four, RPing. "Do you not have any good folk among you?" Or how about having to curb your heroism because you don't want to cross over. How lame would that be?
Yes, those are minor counterarguments, but it's also a minor bonus we're talking about. It's not so much an argument for non-TN as it is to point out that going TN simply to avoid alignment damage isn't "an obvious choice". If a fellow player told me that's why they chose their PC's alignment, I'd be more disappointed than impressed.
And in an extreme example, like an anti-demon campaign, where many enemies do Evil damage, I'd prefer an all-Good party (w/ the Good damage to go with it) over an all-TN party. (Mixed alignments might be the worst though!)
Two, yes, for non-divine PCs, it's a meager benefit, but for divine PCs you're cutting yourself off from being able to do alignment damage. Alignment damage (esp. Good vs. Fiends) can be significant.
Just small nitpick here, it is your deity's alignment that matter, not yours. If you're good with a neutral deity, no nice alignment damage for you, but if your deity allows neutral follower, you can "benefit" of being TN.
Yeah, if you are true neutral follower of a good god you can get the perks of dealing alignment damage while not be harmed by alignment (most sources anyways).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Cause I want to" is a good reason.Not to justify neutral being the more minmaxed choice...
(You could play good if you wanted to even if Paizo hadn't made the alignments so unbalanced)
It is "minmaxed" in the most pathetic of circumstances.
They're not really unbalanced.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Castilliano: You don't let your players choose their own alignment? That's one I find particularly odd.
I inform them to play the alignment they want their PC to be. So yes, in that sense players choose their PC's alignment.
If they don't play the alignment they list, they aren't that alignment any more than if they list "kind and happy" and roleplay "dour and cruel"."No, no, she has to think I'm happy because I wrote it down!" Nope.
Neither do the forces of the universe need to accept such.
Haven't had any issues with it.
Some players were quite pleased when they discovered their PCs qualified as Good. Others knew it because they'd put effort into being so, not simply by killing evil things. One power-hungry Wizard slid into Evil a bit reluctantly, though the player acknowledged the truth of it! Aforementioned Good folk helped aid her journey after learning that, and she shifted back to neutral by (also reluctantly) accepting their advice.
I think they learned that when an Evil spell harmed everyone else, though those players too acknowledged it.
