Why do we have Alignment?

[keftiu]

To make my point a little more succinctly: if Champion subclasses worked the way every other class gets to, where “Liberator” and “Redeemer” are just things you can be like an Animal Barbarian or a Weapon Thaumaturge, my complaint wouldn’t exist. But instead, because Alignment is not optional, a massive number of deity choices aren’t viable.

People would be mad if Demon Sorcerers were required to be Chaotic Evil. I just wish the game was consistent.

[Gortle]

There is a moral simplicity that comes with it. There is an ability to hang mechanics off it. It gives us useful groupings.

Ultimately it come down to being a convenient label for certain sides. I get that is problematic if moral complexity and relativity is your philosphy. But you need to look at the end result. Every actor has to choose to do A or B or one of the small number of actually viable courses of action. You get to choose the details.

We have a game where Deities and religions are a significant part of the lore. Obviously everyone is going to want different things. Obviously that is full of philospohical problems. The system itself shouldn't be too perscriptive and it is not. It can't be too deep or it would be its own philosophy and therefore be rejected by the other parts of society that doesn't like any particular philosophy. What alignment gives us is a framework to build what we want. If you play a saintly game or a foul parody it is up to you.

To me your statement comes across as very minor. Variant rules exist to do exactly what you suggest. Saying alignment is not optional is wrong - it is optional. You are just complaining that the default is not what you want.

I accept that that is still a valid complaint.

I don't accept that it would be a better game. There is value in alignment.

Yes Divine Sorcerers and Oracles have Deity rules problems that Clerics and Champions don't have. Example if your Demon Sorcerer worship Iomedae but gets his magic from Baphomet what is his Divine Lance? But that is another thread.

[keftiu]

We've now gone from "it's completely optional" to "just get over it."

I'm gonna take my leave from this thread. There's nothing else productive for me to say here.

[PossibleCabbage]

I would probably change the "allowable alignments for a deity" to be "anything that makes sense in context" with only a few exceptions (e.g. no non-evil Asmodeans, no good Gorumites) before I'd move the champions out of their alignment boxes.

Like by RAW Nocticula can't have Redeemers (just Liberators) but if you really had a premise for a character that made the pieces fit together I wouldn't say no.

[Gortle]

keftiu wrote:

We've now gone from "it's completely optional" to "just get over it."

I'm gonna take my leave from this thread. There's nothing else productive for me to say here.

Sorry I should have phrased that a little better because those words have more connotations.

I think we have talked each other out. Thanks.

[FormerFiend]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I would probably change the "allowable alignments for a deity" to be "anything that makes sense in context" with only a few exceptions (e.g. no non-evil Asmodeans, no good Gorumites) before I'd move the champions out of their alignment boxes.

Like by RAW Nocticula can't have Redeemers (just Liberators) but if you really had a premise for a character that made the pieces fit together I wouldn't say no.

I'm going to go run a CG Gorumite & neither you nor James Jacobs can stop me.

[zeonsghost]

Gortle wrote:

I don't accept that it would be a better game. There is value in alignment.

It is a mechanic that makes the game worse the more its enforced. What other rule in the game is like that? If my GM thinks lawful good means I do as Gygax would do and purge all the goblins, despite my gods rules saying I shouldn't do that, what makes about alignment is making this game better? We could just skip to "my deity's creed is X,Y,Z" and take out the moral complexity you're so concerned about by binning alignment and going with something less vague than the opinions of the "genocide is good, actually" guy.

[PossibleCabbage]

FormerFiend wrote:

I'm going to go run a CG Gorumite & neither you nor James Jacobs can stop me.

sure, but the entire premise of the activity is in cultivating a shared world that makes sense to the entire table and my opposition to CG Gorumites comes from having played one and having been totally unable to make it make sense to me. "Fight Anybody, Anywhere, Anytime, Don't Even Need A Reason" could only actually be good purely by accident (i.e. all of your opportunities for violence, by pure chance, involve targets whose murking would frankly be righteous.)

But if you like the idea, in your games knock yourself out. It's sort of like "really, there's no reason you couldn't make half-Iruxi" it's just that I'm not really into the idea so I'm not inclined to make it happen.

[Gortle]

zeonsghost wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I don't accept that it would be a better game. There is value in alignment.

It is a mechanic that makes the game worse the more its enforced.

You have already missed the point by making that statement. There is no such GM enforcement in the game. Alignment is supposed to be interpreted and like so many other things in this game, it is supposed to have varied interpretations.

You will have as many problems with a short creed as you do with alignment.

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

FormerFiend wrote:

I'm going to go run a CG Gorumite & neither you nor James Jacobs can stop me.

sure, but the entire premise of the activity is in cultivating a shared world that makes sense to the entire table and my opposition to CG Gorumites comes from having played one and having been totally unable to make it make sense to me. "Fight Anybody, Anywhere, Anytime, Don't Even Need A Reason" could only actually be good purely by accident (i.e. all of your opportunities for violence, by pure chance, involve targets whose murking would frankly be righteous.)

You know what really gets me is that you can't have an LN follower of the god of honorable combat. Or an N follower of a god who specifically shuns the moral complexities of law and chaos.

[PossibleCabbage]

Squiggit wrote:

You know what really gets me is that you can't have an LN follower of the god of honorable combat. Or an N follower of a god who specifically shuns the moral complexities of law and chaos.

I think the reason you can't have Lawful Gorumites is that while all your fights are honorable, that you see "direct physical confrontation" as the first, last, and only tool for resolving problems does sort of run contrary to an orderly society. Like a lawful person would see "they should fight" as an insane resolution to "Party A wants Party B to pay for the figs they delivered as promised, but Party B objects to the figs being of substandard quality."

True neutral on the level of "I really DGAF about Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil" should probably work though.

[Squiggit]

Yeah, I sort of get the position, I just feel like some sort of... honorable mercenary whose life and career are defined by war being a devotee of a god who is defined by war and values fair fights to feel pretty reasonable. I'd argue easier to make fit than applying those same tenants to someone who shares alignment space with Glabrezu.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

zeonsghost wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I don't accept that it would be a better game. There is value in alignment.

It is a mechanic that makes the game worse the more its enforced. What other rule in the game is like that? If my GM thinks lawful good means I do as Gygax would do and purge all the goblins, despite my gods rules saying I shouldn't do that, what makes about alignment is making this game better? We could just skip to "my deity's creed is X,Y,Z" and take out the moral complexity you're so concerned about by binning alignment and going with something less vague than the opinions of the "genocide is good, actually" guy.

Well, with PF2's Code of Conduct rules, your deity's anathema (committing genocide) overturns the general assumptions of alignment, so the idea that you have these "lose/lose" situations by introducing alignment on top of it is debunked. It might have been an issue in previous editions, but I find that it has been handled quite well in this one, so listing that alignment is nothing but a detriment because it's enforced more doesn't track with this concept being enforced on top of it. Now, if we want to argue that Paizo shouldn't have had to do this if Alignment was handled better, that's one thing. But this is a question of why we have it, not if it's well or poorly implemented.

Furthermore, PF2 Goblins aren't the same as Goblins from Gygax's universe. They are completely different entities (even if they have some similarities). So of course it's not going to translate that one form of entity being irredeemably Evil is not the same as the other form, which isn't portrayed like that. It wasn't meant to. Gygax saying "Not killing every Goblin you see is not Lawful Good" was not a statement in regards to PF2 Goblins, it was in response to Goblins in his universe. Not the same entities = Not the same response.

[Squiggit]

zeonsghost wrote:

It is a mechanic that makes the game worse the more its enforced. What other rule in the game is like that?

Most of them. What you're describing is a bad GM. Bad GMs can make alignment miserable, sure. Bad GMs can abuse rule 0 to make their players' lives rougher, does that make rule 0 a bad rule? Bad GMs can use rarity like a cudgel, can weaponize anathema to make druids, clerics, and champions unplayable. A bad GM can steal a wizard's spellbook and keep them from being able to do much of anything, should we get rid of spellbooks?

... No (or well, maybe we could get into the weeds on some of these with some people, but not the point) you just avoid GMs like that as much as you can.

I'm pretty ambivalent on alignment in general but I feel like a lot of criticisms of it are basically just hypothesizing worst case scenarios, when "a player or GM is awful to other people at the table" is a problem that transcends rules entirely.

I find the mechanical concerns a lot more compelling, since those are tangible ways in which players are restricted.

[FormerFiend]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

FormerFiend wrote:

I'm going to go run a CG Gorumite & neither you nor James Jacobs can stop me.

sure, but the entire premise of the activity is in cultivating a shared world that makes sense to the entire table and my opposition to CG Gorumites comes from having played one and having been totally unable to make it make sense to me. "Fight Anybody, Anywhere, Anytime, Don't Even Need A Reason" could only actually be good purely by accident (i.e. all of your opportunities for violence, by pure chance, involve targets whose murking would frankly be righteous.)

But if you like the idea, in your games knock yourself out. It's sort of like "really, there's no reason you couldn't make half-Iruxi" it's just that I'm not really into the idea so I'm not inclined to make it happen.

Granted, I make it work by having a different view of who & what Gorun is & stands for than the one you present. That view might be out of step with how Gorum's presented in current lore but I feel it rings true to the character.

In my view, Gorum is a god of self reliance, self improvement, & self assertion, & conviction. He's a god that demands that you be willing & ready to fight for your position, not one who demands that a fight be the only way to resolve conflict. If you can talk things out, that's fine. Just don't bend over backwards or jump through hoops when a fight would resolve things quicker.

I also view him as a god of war in these sense of war being a horribe, but unavoidable disaster; its caused by powers beyond your control, you can either meet it, survive it, endure it, or you can run from it or be destroyed by it. Gorum demands you do the former. The actual horrors and atrocities of war are covered by Moloch, Szuriel, Nurgul(or is it Nurgal? Always mix those two up) & basically the entire orc pantheon(tangent, I think a solid half of the orc gods should be shifted to cn).

That's, if nothing else, how I would have a good aligned Gorumite characterize him. And if any god is going to encourage conflict within the faithful by tolerating contradictory interpretations that lead to infighting, it's Gorum.

Also I just don't want to play a faithful of Cayden Cailean because he's the haha funny meme god & I just find him tiresome if I'm being frank.

[Deriven Firelion]

I'd love to see a book like the old Faiths and Avatars for Forgotten Realms where each deity had unique specialty priests for PF2 priests and champions. I know that will likely never happen.

Even more so than alignment, Champion powers don't feel like they fit many gods. They are way too generic in their powers. I'd love to see more variety of Champions that fit better with a deity's theme.

[Temperans]

Zoomba wrote:

Sidebar on spells: I will also say that part of my (and I believe some others') issue with the use of alignment tags on spells is their inconsistency. When Paizo declares certain magic effects 'evil' or 'good' but other very thematically and mechanically similar effects unaligned, it can call attention to how arbitrary the system can sometimes be, as well as how much those tags are actually adding.

1e examples:
Evil - Wracking Ray, Retribution, Cloak of Shadows (just gives you a protective shadow cloak )
Not Evil - Ray of Enfeeblement, Boneshatter, Massacre ('The wave visibly rips the souls from the bodies of those it passes through, which manifest as screaming, transparent versions of the affected creatures.')

I am quite glad this has been minimized significantly in 2e

You are mentioning spells and saying "look how weird it is" but you are not mentioning the context in which those spells were released of what they do.

Wrecking Ray (Champions of Corruption): A ray of negative energy causes the target to be wracked with painful spams as its muscles and sinews wither and twist. The spell does not kill just severely impairs you (5d4 ability damage).

Retribution (Advance Player's Guide): A target that just hit you with an attack is wracked with pain taking a sizeable penalty on most d20 checks. If the target worships the same deity they take a -2 on the save.

Cloak of Shadows (Villain's Codex): Its literally a spell for vampires and creatures that have vulnerability to sunlight, most of which are evil. It even upgrades itself vs creatures that can't see you in the darkness.

Ray of enfeeblement (Core Rulebook): Just makes the target weaker.

Boneshatter (Pyramid of the Sky Pharaoh): Splinters bones or exoskeletons and released in a land where the big enemies are mummies.

Massacre (Horror Adventures): It literally has the death trait and affects everyone regardless of alignment. It can be used by a good creature to kill evil and vice versa.

***************************

All tags in PF1 are based on the context of what the spell does, and what was the purpose for it being released. This is why you have spells in PF1 that can only be cast by members of a certain race/ancestry or religion. Also note that in PF1 clerics are specifically not allowed to cast spells opposite their alignment or their deities (if they have one). Unlike PF2 where they are allowed but those spells are usually anathema or might change your alignment.

[aobst128]

There's issues with deities and champions but that's more of an issue of them specifically and not alignment in general.

[aobst128]

And if I may, Gygax Shmygax. We don't need to have him be baggage if we don't want him to be. We can use modern sensibilities just fine.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

aobst128 wrote:

And if I may, Gygax Shmygax. We don't need to have him be baggage if we don't want him to be. We can use modern sensibilities just fine.

Yeah! We can be our own baggage we bring to the table!

[Temperans]

Now for the actual alignment thing.

Alignment is very helpful for people who:
a) Don't have the skills to make full character with extensive backstory and a bunch of other stuff.
b) Don't have the skill to roleplay a character with something with an extensive backstory.
c) Don't want to spend so much time to do all that backstory stuff (specially a thing now a days).
d) Are not good at roleplaying period.
Way too many people assume that you have to be good at roleplay otherwise you are playing wrong. The whole "you cannot use alignment" is straight up more of that, because it is the people who don't know how to roleplay that are more likely to use alignment to make their decisions on what to do.

Secondly, the whole "don't base your actions based on your alignment" is silly because the whole thing is self-referential. Your actions determine your alignment, but it is your alignment and current events that determine your actions. Otherwise, you get into the very silly situation where you are Lawful Good until you decide that you are actually Chaotic Evil, and it's just asking to game the system in a way that its clearly not meant to be gamed.

Finally, people pay more attention to the weird implications when out of game not while in game. Literally every single "ahh but alignment causes this issue" is started out of game because someone decided to over think the whole thing. From "this city doesn't make sense as X alignment" (ignores that cities have a whole lot of people) to "X media character should by Y alignment" (ignoring that those characters where not written with alignment in mind and would usually be neutral).

*******************************

For all the complaints that alignment is too simple, that is what makes it such a great system. You can very quickly use it to note what actions a character is likely to take without knowing anything else about them. You can also very easily expand on the system to make it more realistic without needing to make a backstory for every single character.

[Malk_Content]

Temperans wrote:

Now for the actual alignment thing.

Alignment is very helpful for people who:
a) Don't have the skills to make full character with extensive backstory and a bunch of other stuff.
b) Don't have the skill to roleplay a character with something with an extensive backstory.
c) Don't want to spend so much time to do all that backstory stuff (specially a thing now a days).
d) Are not good at roleplaying period.
Way too many people assume that you have to be good at roleplay otherwise you are playing wrong. The whole "you cannot use alignment" is straight up more of that, because it is the people who don't know how to roleplay that are more likely to use alignment to make their decisions on what to do.

...

A through D would be better served with a list of suggested personality traits, both in terms of ease (pedant is a lot easier for everyone to agree the meaning to than what LN means.) I can make a character with 0 thought into the character without alignment just fine, filling in those two letters doesn't really improve by role playing in anyway.

Having three personality traits for example would, even if I pick them randomly off a list. Heck tie it into gaining Hero Points and you've opened the mechanical door to encouraging roleplay.

[Temperans]

Malk_Content wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Now for the actual alignment thing.

Alignment is very helpful for people who:
a) Don't have the skills to make full character with extensive backstory and a bunch of other stuff.
b) Don't have the skill to roleplay a character with something with an extensive backstory.
c) Don't want to spend so much time to do all that backstory stuff (specially a thing now a days).
d) Are not good at roleplaying period.
Way too many people assume that you have to be good at roleplay otherwise you are playing wrong. The whole "you cannot use alignment" is straight up more of that, because it is the people who don't know how to roleplay that are more likely to use alignment to make their decisions on what to do.

...

A through D would be better served with a list of suggested personality traits, both in terms of ease (pedant is a lot easier for everyone to agree the meaning to than what LN means.) I can make a character with 0 thought into the character without alignment just fine, filling in those two letters doesn't really improve by role playing in anyway.

Having three personality traits for example would, even if I pick them randomly off a list. Heck tie it into gaining Hero Points and you've opened the mechanical door to encouraging roleplay.

Meanwhile, I am saying that it depends on the player. Some people are better with a backstory, others can't handle it period. Some people work well be knowing the personality trait, others have no idea what to do with those traits. Some peopl work well by knowing the alignment, other people find it too vague.

You can tell me all the personality types you want and I will understand what you mean with those personalities. But I have no idea how to roleplay those personalities. You know what I know however? That helping someone is good and not help is at best neutralb; So if I play a good character I would most likely try to help.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

[Temperans]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

...

Oh great a paladin falls type question. The answer to torching down any building is usually that its evil. With the sole exceptions being: fireman training, crime scene reenactment, and "this is the house of someone evil and the place just got fireballed during a fight".

Torching down a building with children is doubly evil, with the exception of "they were all evil children that can never be redeemed ever".

Accident are accidents and thus neutral. Still probably should face the legal consequences of the area.

[FormerFiend]

Temperans wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

...

Oh great a paladin falls type question. The answer to torching down any building is usually that its evil. With the sole exceptions being: fireman training, crime scene reenactment, and "this is the house of someone evil and the place just got fireballed during a fight".

Torching down a building with children is doubly evil, with the exception of "they were all evil children that can never be redeemed ever".

Accident are accidents and thus neutral. Still probably should face the legal consequences of the area.

I'd vigorously dispute every assertion that you've made here except that last line.

[Gortle]

Temperans wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

...

Oh great a paladin falls type question. The answer to torching down any building is usually that its evil. With the sole exceptions being: fireman training, crime scene reenactment, and "this is the house of someone evil and the place just got fireballed during a fight".

Torching down a building with children is doubly evil, with the exception of "they were all evil children that can never be redeemed ever".

Accident are accidents and thus neutral. Still probably should face the legal consequences of the area.

Is Thanos in the building?

[Temperans]

Gortle wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

...

Oh great a paladin falls type question. The answer to torching down any building is usually that its evil. With the sole exceptions being: fireman training, crime scene reenactment, and "this is the house of someone evil and the place just got fireballed during a fight".

Torching down a building with children is doubly evil, with the exception of "they were all evil children that can never be redeemed ever".

Accident are accidents and thus neutral. Still probably should face the legal consequences of the area.

Is Thanos in the building?

Why I don't like paladin falls type questions. Once they start they just keep on coming.

Also, I don't think anyone here would think burning down the building he is in would kill him. Would you do it?

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Temperans wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

...

Oh great a paladin falls type question. The answer to torching down any building is usually that its evil. With the sole exceptions being: fireman training, crime scene reenactment, and "this is the house of someone evil and the place just got fireballed during a fight".

Torching down a building with children is doubly evil, with the exception of "they were all evil children that can never be redeemed ever".

Accident are accidents and thus neutral. Still probably should face the legal consequences of the area.

Is Thanos in the building?

Why I don't like paladin falls type questions. Once they start they just keep on coming.

Also, I don't think anyone here would think burning down the building he is in would kill him. Would you do it?

You see a purple guy in a barn going on about killing half the universe. You have no idea who he is, but he sure seems hell-bent on murderous intent. You have a torch. You set the building on fire, hoping to stop the crazy purple guy before he makes good on his promise.

Have you committed an evil act?

[graystone]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

You see a purple guy in a barn going on about killing half the universe. You have no idea who he is, but he sure seems hell-bent on murderous intent. You have a torch. You set the building on fire, hoping to stop the crazy purple guy before he makes good on his promise.

Have you committed an evil act?

Depends... What alignment was the torch before you lit it?

[Lucerious]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

You see a purple guy in a barn going on about killing half the universe. You have no idea who he is, but he sure seems hell-bent on murderous intent. You have a torch. You set the building on fire, hoping to stop the crazy purple guy before he makes good on his promise.

Have you committed an evil act?

I don’t trust purple people especially if they happen to have one eye, one horn, and can fly. However, yes it is an evil act. You don’t know if the purple guy is for real and if he actually has the power or ability to enact his mumblings.

[aobst128]

Arson is cool

[The Raven Black]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

So, Temperans, if a character torches an orphanage full of goblin kids, is that an evil act?

...

Oh great a paladin falls type question. The answer to torching down any building is usually that its evil. With the sole exceptions being: fireman training, crime scene reenactment, and "this is the house of someone evil and the place just got fireballed during a fight".

Torching down a building with children is doubly evil, with the exception of "they were all evil children that can never be redeemed ever".

Accident are accidents and thus neutral. Still probably should face the legal consequences of the area.

Is Thanos in the building?

Why I don't like paladin falls type questions. Once they start they just keep on coming.

Also, I don't think anyone here would think burning down the building he is in would kill him. Would you do it?

You see a purple guy in a barn going on about killing half the universe. You have no idea who he is, but he sure seems hell-bent on murderous intent. You have a torch. You set the building on fire, hoping to stop the crazy purple guy before he makes good on his promise.

Have you committed an evil act?

Yes.

It might also have a Good consequence though.

In the end, the deities (aka the GM) decide what the end result is.

[The Raven Black]

zeonsghost wrote:

Gortle wrote:

I don't accept that it would be a better game. There is value in alignment.

It is a mechanic that makes the game worse the more its enforced. What other rule in the game is like that? If my GM thinks lawful good means I do as Gygax would do and purge all the goblins, despite my gods rules saying I shouldn't do that, what makes about alignment is making this game better? We could just skip to "my deity's creed is X,Y,Z" and take out the moral complexity you're so concerned about by binning alignment and going with something less vague than the opinions of the "genocide is good, actually" guy.

Any houserule (or interpretation of the rules) that is sprung on the players in-game is like this.

I always thought a given GM's take on alignment was similar to a houserule and needed sharing it with the players even before character creation.

That does not make the alignment system bad though.

[Deriven Firelion]

aobst128 wrote:

And if I may, Gygax Shmygax. We don't need to have him be baggage if we don't want him to be. We can use modern sensibilities just fine.

I don't think Gygax needs to be baggage. But revising the history of D&D to make it seem like Gygax did anything other than grab some general fantasy ideas for alignment is a tiresome and false idea. Gygax and the original creators of the game were making this to have fun drawing from a lot of different sources they read over the years and adding them in to make for a wide open, fun, and adaptable game. Which given it is still in production fifty years after he made it seems to have succeeded at that goal as this game has inspired likely millions of people to creatively tailor it to their own preferences at many tables of people enjoying the game he made.

You don't like alignment even Gygax would tell you do what you want with it. Just like he did all those years ago when I read interviews with the man. He wanted people to have a fun game to play fantasy scenarios with, encourage creativity, and capture what he enjoyed in the genre. Make your own stories and such.

[aobst128]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

And if I may, Gygax Shmygax. We don't need to have him be baggage if we don't want him to be. We can use modern sensibilities just fine.

I don't think Gygax needs to be baggage. But revising the history of D&D to make it seem like Gygax did anything other than grab some general fantasy ideas for alignment is a tiresome and false idea. Gygax and the original creators of the game were making this to have fun drawing from a lot of different sources they read over the years and adding them in to make for a wide open, fun, and adaptable game. Which given it is still in production fifty years after he made it seems to have succeeded at that goal as this game has inspired likely millions of people to creatively tailor it to their own preferences at many tables of people enjoying the game he made.

You don't like alignment even Gygax would tell you do what you want with it. Just like he did all those years ago when I read interviews with the man. He wanted people to have a fun game to play fantasy scenarios with, encourage creativity, and capture what he enjoyed in the genre. Make your own stories and such.

I'm not too knowledgeable on Gygax's controversies. My point was mainly that even considering them, they don't need to bring the ideas down just because they were his ideas. They can be their own thing and our own thing as the fantasy ttrpg genre has evolved. So we're in agreement then I think.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

keftiu wrote:

People would be mad if Demon Sorcerers were required to be Chaotic Evil. I just wish the game was consistent.

I would be delighted if Demon Sorcerers were required to be Chaotic Evil.

[PossibleCabbage]

Sorcerers who are demons should almost always be chaotic evil, because they're demons. Sorcerers with the demonic bloodline can be anything, including leshies and automatons somehow (as always because "make it make sense" is the job of the player.)

[aobst128]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

keftiu wrote:

People would be mad if Demon Sorcerers were required to be Chaotic Evil. I just wish the game was consistent.

I would be delighted if Demon Sorcerers were required to be Chaotic Evil.

That would be unfortunate if that were the case. The whole identity of sorcerers is their inherent magic that they don't get a choice in. It's in their blood. That can definitely have a stake in how someone turns out but it's still the sum of your choices that make up a person. Having alignment restrictions for sorcerer's essentially takes away their free will because they never had a choice in the matter.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

aobst128 wrote:

That would be unfortunate if that were the case. The whole identity of sorcerers is their inherent magic that they don't get a choice in. It's in their blood. That can definitely have a stake in how someone turns out but it's still the sum of your choices that make up a person. Having alignment restrictions for sorcerer's essentially takes away their free will because they never had a choice in the matter.

If a character's inherent sorcerous abilities derive from a strong connection to incarnations of Chaotic Evil, it works for me that they should be required to be Chaotic Evil, at least to begin with. Thinking in terms of redemption arcs from that might be workable with a role-play heavy group, though finding a modality for that that does not equate to "stop being a demoonic sorcerer" is kind of challenging in the context of the particular plausible player groups I am thinking of. (I may have been spending too much time thinking about how that kind of thing works in Exalted recently.)

Addendum, in the interests of fending off rehashes of unproductive discussions I have had before; I work in research neuroscience, and the general consensus in the groups I play with is strongly that free will, as it is implemented in Golarion, and the moral significance thereof, is an interesting fictional construct that works in a game context. Any argument based on the assumption that that value of free will happens in RL will get no traction with me.

I am generally in favour of much tighter alignment restrictions for any number of character concepts, as it is a shape of constraint I have found much more likely to generate creativity and interesting characters than to stifle them.

[PossibleCabbage]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

If a character's inherent sorcerous abilities derive from a strong connection to incarnations of Chaotic Evil, it works for me that they should be required to be Chaotic Evil, at least to begin with. Thinking in terms of redemption arcs from that might be workable with a role-play heavy group, though finding a modality for that that does not equate to "stop being a demoonic sorcerer" is kind of challenging in the context of the particular plausible player groups I am thinking of. (I may have been spending too much time thinking about how that kind of thing works in Exalted recently.)

I mean, an Abyssal Exalt does not actually need to become a relentless vanguard of Oblivion and Nihilism, even if that's what their bosses want. You can get away with paying lip service to the rules and not crossing too many lines. Whatever resonance you accrue *can* be vented by just wrecking your immediate vicinity... usually.

The big difference between an Exalt and a Sorcerer though is that most Exalts have an actual entity or organization they need to be responsible to (even if it's a terrestrial authority for terrestrials), whereas sorcerers are just people being born with the right ancestors.

So being a demon-bloodline sorcerer shouldn't make you evil any more than being a Tiefling makes you evil.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So being a demon-bloodline sorcerer shouldn't make you evil any more than being a Tiefling makes you evil.

The difference, as I see it there, is that "tiefling" isn't a character class. A tiefling is not inherently required to do anything with their life that relates to or engages with their fiendish origin. A demon-blooded sorcerer, by definition, is using powers directly deriving from Chaotic Evil as a cosmic polarity. A purely human sorcerer who leans into using the powers of Chaotic Evil is in any games of mine also going to become Chaotic Evil in short order if they are not already there.

This would, I think, work better if Good and Evil were referred to as Celestial and Fiendish as polarities go, because I think the game becomes a lot more interesting if alignments are cosmic forces that shape their users and all have a bunch of adherents embodying and more or less aggressively proselytising, but the game itself does not cede them any specific moral authority; that nothing requires either a character, or (even better for avoiding arguments) a player, to regard Evil as having to match their personal conception of evil, or Good good. Infernal healing, to pick a fictitious and therefore hopefully non-controversial example, is much more interesting to me as a concept if it can at the same time do something a player could plausibly deem good (heal someone) while still being objectively, in the setting, Evil, with the consequences that entails.

(Also, short of some really fancy footwork an Abysaal Exalt working not to be a relentless vanguard of oblivion and nihilism is inherently trying not to be an Abyssal Exalt as their makers intended, to my mind; I like Exalted as a cosmology because so very much of it is explicitly about exploring what in a D&D-derived model come out as alignment-based quandaries.)

[aobst128]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So being a demon-bloodline sorcerer shouldn't make you evil any more than being a Tiefling makes you evil.

The difference, as I see it there, is that "tiefling" isn't a character class. A tiefling is not inherently required to do anything with their life that relates to or engages with their fiendish origin. A demon-blooded sorcerer, by definition, is using powers directly deriving from Chaotic Evil as a cosmic polarity. A purely human sorcerer who leans into using the powers of Chaotic Evil is in any games of mine also going to become Chaotic Evil in short order if they are not already there.

This would, I think, work better if Good and Evil were referred to as Celestial and Fiendish as polarities go, because I think the game becomes a lot more interesting if alignments are cosmic forces that shape their users and all have a bunch of adherents embodying and more or less aggressively proselytising, but the game itself does not cede them any specific moral authority; that nothing requires either a character, or (even better for avoiding arguments) a player, to regard Evil as having to match their personal conception of evil, or Good good. Infernal healing, to pick a fictitious and therefore hopefully non-controversial example, is much more interesting to me as a concept if it can at the same time do something a player could plausibly deem good (heal someone) while still being objectively, in the setting, Evil, with the consequences that entails.

(Also, short of some really fancy footwork an Abysaal Exalt working not to be a relentless vanguard of oblivion and nihilism is inherently trying not to be an Abyssal Exalt as their makers intended, to my mind; I like Exalted as a cosmology because so very much of it is explicitly about exploring what in a D&D-derived model come out as alignment-based quandaries.)

Taking away player agency based on the semantics of cosmic force alignment and not on actual moral implications would be very frustrating for a system that's supposed to be able choices and morality. Choices and intentions are what defines a person's alignment. It's less important that a sorcerer has infernal power and more important what they choose to do with that power. Besides, there's a lot of value in that sort of story telling for a blood cursed sorcerer to take their lot in life and forge their own path with it regardless of their origins. That's pretty much outlined in the class description. Same thing for tieflings

[Kaspyr2077]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So being a demon-bloodline sorcerer shouldn't make you evil any more than being a Tiefling makes you evil.

The difference, as I see it there, is that "tiefling" isn't a character class. A tiefling is not inherently required to do anything with their life that relates to or engages with their fiendish origin. A demon-blooded sorcerer, by definition, is using powers directly deriving from Chaotic Evil as a cosmic polarity. A purely human sorcerer who leans into using the powers of Chaotic Evil is in any games of mine also going to become Chaotic Evil in short order if they are not already there.

This would, I think, work better if Good and Evil were referred to as Celestial and Fiendish as polarities go, because I think the game becomes a lot more interesting if alignments are cosmic forces that shape their users and all have a bunch of adherents embodying and more or less aggressively proselytising, but the game itself does not cede them any specific moral authority; that nothing requires either a character, or (even better for avoiding arguments) a player, to regard Evil as having to match their personal conception of evil, or Good good. Infernal healing, to pick a fictitious and therefore hopefully non-controversial example, is much more interesting to me as a concept if it can at the same time do something a player could plausibly deem good (heal someone) while still being objectively, in the setting, Evil, with the consequences that entails.

A Good character drawing on and subverting inherently Evil powers is a huge trope in fiction because it's a pretty great story. Your interpretation of the morality of it shuts it down and makes it instantly far less compelling. I can't think of a story that's improved by tying a character's alignment to the nature of the power they use. The idea of writing a kind, law-abiding character's alignment as Chaotic Evil because of the class they're playing shocks and upsets me.

In the setting, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all observable, measurable forces that exist and influence the material realm. The idea of relative morality is absurd in that context. It's fine to have values that don't align perfectly with one of them, but it's hard to say a thing is "good" when it isn't "Good," in the context of morality being empirical and fundamental, rather than a vague sense of a set of social expectations that shift at varying speeds.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

aobst128 wrote:

Taking away player agency based on the semantics of cosmic force alignment and not on actual moral implications would be very frustrating for a system that's supposed to be able choices and morality.

This may be an irreconcilable difference in taste, then, because where you see frustration, I am seeing the kind of interesting roleplaying challenges that make alignment worth having.

I would also note that the apocalypse locust in the PF1 Bestiary 4, with its ability to brand people such that they become, metaphysically and for the purposes of related effects, Chaotic Evil regardless of their behaviour or intent, indicates that choices and morality are not universally in control of alignment status in Golarion's cosmology.

Quote:

Choices and intentions are what defines a person's alignment.

Assessing alignment based on intention seems to add even more murkiness to just the places where arguments are most likely to happen. When GMing I make it clear from the get-go that alignment will be assessed by actions and their consequences, not the motivations with which they are carried out.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

The idea of writing a kind, law-abiding character's alignment as Chaotic Evil because of the class they're playing shocks and upsets me

The idea of a kind, law-abiding character having access to the power of Chaotic Evil rather than inherently obtaining access to the power of Lawful Good does not work for me.

Quote:

In the setting, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are all observable, measurable forces that exist and influence the material realm. The idea of relative morality is absurd in that context. It's fine to have values that don't align perfectly with one of them, but it's hard to say a thing is "good" when it isn't "Good," in the context of morality being empirical and fundamental, rather than a vague sense of a set of social expectations that shift at varying speeds.

The place where I see unacceptable restrictions on player agency, in this way of looking at things, is "the multiverse says this thing is Evil so you have no choice about having to regard it as evil". That they are observable, empirically measurable forces is precisely what removes them from the arena of moral decision-making.

I want to be able to tell stories where a truly good person can, if the situation calls for it, have to consider the possibility of sacrificing not just their life but their afterlife in the name of doing something good that the multiverse happens to have labelled Evil. (The infernal healing example again.) I want to be able to tell stories where accepting the objective polarities of the metaphysical forces of the multiverse or raging against them are equally valid options for PCs.

[Errenor]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

The idea of writing a kind, law-abiding character's alignment as Chaotic Evil because of the class they're playing shocks and upsets me

The idea of a kind, law-abiding character having access to the power of Chaotic Evil rather than inherently obtaining access to the power of Lawful Good does not work for me.

I guess you just see it differently than most. It's not the power of Chaotic Evil, it's just the power of Magic for me. Yes, it's has some ties with demons in this case. It could be almost insignificant though. It definitely is not a direct conduit into the Abyss. Well, unless the player wished it so. The player, NOT the GM.

[Temperans]

Where the heck did people get the whole "Sorcerer Bloodlines need to be alignment restricted" in the first place? That has never been a thing in pathfinder not even Aasimar and Tiefling have preset alignments. Heck the literal first Aasimar in any pathfinder adventure path is evil.

Now you come here telling us that Sorcerers need to be have the alignment of whatever its great-great-great-great-great-great-[insert more greats]-grandparent may have had?

That straight up sounds like explicitly trying to make the game worse and play like its not intended to justify the dislike of alignment.

***************

And before anyone says "but oh some classes had alignment restriction". Yeah the classes where you literally got power based on your behavior. A lawful good paladin was literally drawing power from them following a code of conduct (having a deity only changed the code and maybe granted a few spells/feats), Barbarians were literally drawing power from their anger management issues, etc.

Sorcerers? Their bloodline has no effect on their behavior.
Witches? Their familiar has no effect on behavior.
Oracles? Their mystery has no effect on behavior outside of the curse.

[Squiggit]

It sounds almost like in nerve-eater's game that 'alignment' is more about affiliation than morality.

Casting infernal healing too many times is more about joining team coke over team pepsi than a fundamental look into morality and ethics.

[Squiggit]

keftiu wrote:

Casandalee is one example of many.

PossibleCabbage's example of the Redeemer Queen not being allowed to have Redeemers is a big one too.

And would anyone argue Liberating Step is a more flavorful reaction for a champion of Calistria than Retributive Strike?