Why do we have Alignment?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
[A]lignment will be assessed by actions and their consequences, not the motivations with which they are carried out.

How far removed from the inciting action does the consequence need to happen for it to still be connected to the PC and thus their alignment? If an LG character saves somebody irredeemably evil is it an evil act even if they don't know about it? What if they save a child that grows up to be a mass murderer? If a good character is shoving their way through a crowd chasing after a threat to the city's safety and shoves somebody who ends up trampled by the crowd does that count against them?

We can conceive of a system where immortals with a very long-term view and far more knowledge than even the GM of a game could possibly have could assign some absolute morality to the situation. However, we as beings with limited knowledge and foresight can't possibly judge by anything but the intention behind the act and if a reasonable person would link the action taken with the supposed intention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

Where the heck did people get the whole "Sorcerer Bloodlines need to be alignment restricted" in the first place?

I'm expressing it as a preference. And while Pathfinder has historically not had alignment restrictions of that sort, earlier versions of the D&D family of games have had more stringent ones, so I am not making this up out of thin air.

Quote:


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.

Your first paragraph is entirely true, and the examples you list in it are things I think Pathfinder is weakened by having set aside.

Whether witches or oracles should be bound to consistency with the source of their power depends on how much they are expected to know about what the source of their power is in the first place, to my mind, but I can totally see "only Lawful Good spellcasters get access to Lawful Good familiars" as a good thing. To my mind successful, fun, flavourful characters emerge from well-defined, coherent, consistently played concepts; and defining what is a good match with a particular character concept is exactly the same thing as defining the set of options that don;t fit with it, looked at from the other side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:


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.

This would be one of those places where my deeper underlying principle is "things of that sort need to be agreed to by players and GMs before the game, and neither gets to automatically override the other".

A session 0 laying out the expectations of a particular campaign and confirming everyone is on the same ground seems essential to me. If I am offering to run Wrath of the Righteous, for example, a set of characters who would be effective and well-suited to Skull and Shackles are likely to fit very badly, or indeed the other way around. Better to confirm everyone is on the same page at the beginning; and because alignment is historically an issue so many arguments tend to arise over, and because so many of those are the same arguments over and over, being clear where everyone is coming from in handling alignment is near the top of the list for discussing there. A player doesn't unilaterally get to make decisions about that any more than they unilaterally get to make any other decisions, or than I do; that's the nature of a collaborative game.


S.L.Acker wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
[A]lignment will be assessed by actions and their consequences, not the motivations with which they are carried out.

How far removed from the inciting action does the consequence need to happen for it to still be connected to the PC and thus their alignment? If an LG character saves somebody irredeemably evil is it an evil act even if they don't know about it? What if they save a child that grows up to be a mass murderer? If a good character is shoving their way through a crowd chasing after a threat to the city's safety and shoves somebody who ends up trampled by the crowd does that count against them?

We can conceive of a system where immortals with a very long-term view and far more knowledge than even the GM of a game could possibly have could assign some absolute morality to the situation. However, we as beings with limited knowledge and foresight can't possibly judge by anything but the intention behind the act and if a reasonable person would link the action taken with the supposed intention.

I also do not like using intention as a way of determining what alignment an action has, though I suspect I'm not as into as Nerve-Eater is.

But, in my eye, you don't get to say Valeros committed an evil action because he saved Abrogail Thrune's life and she went on to murder a thousand people. He saved someone's life. That's as far as the moral calculation goes.

The shoving someone down who gets trampled could be neutral or evil. The Good character didn't do the trampling, after all. But it was reckless and without concern for that individual. What the character does not get to do, is claim that stopping the evil they were chasing somehow absolves the action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
[A]lignment will be assessed by actions and their consequences, not the motivations with which they are carried out.

How far removed from the inciting action does the consequence need to happen for it to still be connected to the PC and thus their alignment? If an LG character saves somebody irredeemably evil is it an evil act even if they don't know about it? What if they save a child that grows up to be a mass murderer? If a good character is shoving their way through a crowd chasing after a threat to the city's safety and shoves somebody who ends up trampled by the crowd does that count against them?

To my mind, the question of "how far downstream of their actions is a person responsible for the consequences" is the essence of the difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, for what that may be worth. Again, entirely a thing needing being clear on in session 0.

Quote:
However, we as beings with limited knowledge and foresight can't possibly judge by anything but the intention behind the act and if a reasonable person would link the action taken with the supposed intention.

If anything, I think limited knowledge and foresight apply more strongly to whether we can know the intentions behind an act than to whether we can see the consequences.

My starting position, for what it is worth - and subject to discussion with players before any particular game - is that Lawful expects thinking through and responsibility for the consequences of one's actions to a greater extent than Chaotic, be that Good, Neutral or Evil. I would certainly default to regarding a Lawful Good character unthinkingly getting a bystander trampled by a crowd as failing in being adequately LG. On the other hand, in a setting where morally significant free will is an established thing, that does place the responsibility for a child who grows up to be a mass murderer on the shoulders of said person once they have grown up to be making the decisions to murder or not, and entirely beyond the control (and therefore responsibility) of the person who saved them as a child.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:

But, in my eye, you don't get to say Valeros committed an evil action because he saved Abrogail Thrune's life and she went on to murder a thousand people. He saved someone's life. That's as far as the moral calculation goes.

And that seems to me an essentially Chaotic Good assessment. Whereas Lawful Good arguing "more good was done by the saving of a thousand lives than the saving of one" works for me. Chaos acts on impulse, be that self-serving impulse(Evil) or the impulse of what feels to be the right thing in the moment(Good). Law thinks things through and applies principles.

Quote:
What the character does not get to do, is claim that stopping the evil they were chasing somehow absolves the action.

For a Lawful Good character in a situation where the only possible options are a lesser evil or a greater one to consciously choose the lesser, and do what they can to atone and make reparations later, seems entirely LG to me. (Presuming that all possible effort has gone into finding options that avoid both evils, and has failed.)


Squiggit wrote:
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?

I mean I do agree that "being a Redeemer of Nocticula" is not something you can just write down and show up to the table with. Since Nocticula is the Redeemer Queen because she redeemed herself, but doesn't actually go out and say "you should go out and help other people get redeemed". She's an example for others, but that is about it.

But if you want to talk about your GM about your character and how they fit into the world and the themes of various things that's great. I would allow all sorts of things not generally allowed by the rules through those sorts of conversations- those talks are great!

Like a Redeemer of Nocticula should be rarer and play very differently from a Redeemer of Sarenrae. Like the Redeemer of Nocticula would fit great in a story about an evil society where people become outcasts because they're really fond of cruelty- you help those people find some place they fit better. I have no problem with a player having a character who is completely unique in the universe (indeed I love the *class* in 13th Age that is this) I just want people to think about their characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rather than go back and forth here, which I think almost any of us could do to the point of frustration, let me instead ask: Why is the default 'good' of the setting one that protects civilized humanoids?

Why do we consider protecting nature, which even in a world of gods and magic is essential for survival, considered neutral but saving a single child from injury considered good?

To what extent does mortal morality even matter in a setting with immortal deities, strange outer realm beings, and powerful aligned forces that shape the entire universe as surely as the fundamental forces shape ours?

To my mind, all of Golarion for all the time it will exist in a state suitable for mortal life, is insignificant next to the likely infinite worlds and immortal beings guiding them that should exist in the broader universe. So why should what a single mortal does, for ill or good, matter in the scheme of things?


It has been mentioned a bit, but I wanted to break it down a little further. I don't think it's accurate to say that all or even most of a Sorcerer's power comes directly from whatever magical creature infused their bloodline. The sorcerer's instinct for magic is kindled by the supernatural influence but the magic they wield is only influenced in so far as what tradition they have an affinity for. A demonic sorcerer wields the power of the Abyss in as much as lies in their own physical/spiritual make up (which is certainly no greater than that of a tiefling).

The bloodline unlocked their capacity for magic but the spells they cast are not exclusively fuelled by the Abyss. In fact, without a deity to worship, there are several spells which would call upon the power of evil that the sorcerer couldn't use on their own, including the cantrip Divine Lance. Granted some of the bloodline spells may have the evil tag (Abyssal Plague) and therefore wield the power of Evil, but I would argue this is not the default.

Even so, it is an interesting concept. I would hesitate to link it to the Abyssals of Exalted, as I see their story being something very different than the Pathfinder sorcerer, but it might be an interesting idea if everybody is on board. I think the story of somebody burdened by the knowledge that their powers stem from demonic influence who chooses to help others as much as they can, despite believing they are bent toward destruction makes for a more interesting character, but to each their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:

Rather than go back and forth here, which I think almost any of us could do to the point of frustration, let me instead ask: Why is the default 'good' of the setting one that protects civilized humanoids?

Why do we consider protecting nature, which even in a world of gods and magic is essential for survival, considered neutral but saving a single child from injury considered good?

To what extent does mortal morality even matter in a setting with immortal deities, strange outer realm beings, and powerful aligned forces that shape the entire universe as surely as the fundamental forces shape ours?

To my mind, all of Golarion for all the time it will exist in a state suitable for mortal life, is insignificant next to the likely infinite worlds and immortal beings guiding them that should exist in the broader universe. So why should what a single mortal does, for ill or good, matter in the scheme of things?

Because that is the one most relatable to most human beings as we know it, and that the whole point of this exercise is one of entertainment than of fundamental realism (where, surprise surprise, we aren't the center of the universe). If we don't relate to the characters who exist in the universe, then the idea of it being entertaining becomes far less likely.


Since it's been brought up again I'm going to rehash a bit of my old arguments against the concept of LG only paladins & why I think dropping that idea made them better.

For starters let's tackle the idea of consistency; it's never been entirely consistent aa to whether their powers come from just being super duper lawful good or from a direct divine source.

If it's the former, then that raises a few questions; 1) what is the actual criteria? And 2) why doesn't being super duper literally any other alignment or alignment combination empower people in comparable ways.

To what I mean by the first question, if I make a LG fighter & rp them as abiding by the paladin code of conduct- not because they have to be because it's reflective of their values, they're never going to spontaneously develop the power to heal people by laying their hands on them or smite evil unless I as the player arbitrarily decide to give them paladin levels at some point. There's no criteria, it's not about their behavior or beliefs, it's an arbitrary decision on my part.

On the second question, why is LG the only alignment that empowers people in this way? Barbarians aren't supernaturaly powered, their just people fighting on emotion, instinct, & physicality over skill(which is why dropping that restriction is also good thing). Monks aren't restricted to a single square, just one column. Being lawful evil doesn't give you anything special in and of itself, being chaotic good doesn't give you anything special.

Why? Because an executive decision was made that lawful good is the special alignment & capable of what others aren't. It was decided to be made superior. I've heard it argued that all the evil monsters in the world are the evil alignments manifesting & the paladin is good's counter to them, specifically, but that doesn't explain why neutral and chaotic good aren't pulling their weight, framing lg as the superior good.

And in the sense that the alignment chart is far too simplistic to be reflective of real world morality, it's impossible for that declaration to be objectively true. It's a matter of subjective opinion. Which makes the decision arbitrary.

If paladins are divinely empowered, then that raises the question as to why non-LG gods, or in pf1e, gods more than a step away from LG, don't empower paladins themselves, and there are only two possibile answers to that question; either they *can't*, or they actively choose not to.

If they can't, then lg, ng, & ln gods are capable of something they aren't, and given that there's no equivalent way of empowering divine servants that lg gods can't do, would imply that in this way the lg & adjacent gods are more powerful. Which begs the question, why? And again, the answer is, arbitrary decision on the part of the creative.

If they choose not to, then they're inflexible, stupid, stubborn, or obstinate, in my opinion, and as they aren't real people making real decisions, it is again, an arbitrary choice by the creative to preserve the paladin restriction.

Which is fine; creatives are allowed to make arbitrary decisions about how the magic in their fictional worlds work regardless of how I feel about those decisions. I might think that male-only space marines is stupid(and it is), but GamesWorkshop is allowed to make that creative call.

However, in acknowledging the decision as arbitrary, we also have to acknowledge that it has no intrinsic value beyond, at most, giving a particular flavor to a specific setting.

And we have to then acknowledge that a different creative with a different setting is allowed to make a different decision about what a fictional thing is, and choose to open it up, broaden it out, explore what else it can be. What a paladin is in Greyhawk doesn't need to be the same thing as what a paladin is in Lost Omens.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Kasoh wrote:
But, in my eye, you don't get to say Valeros committed an evil action because he saved Abrogail Thrune's life and she went on to murder a thousand people. He saved someone's life. That's as far as the moral calculation goes.

I tend to agree, but if Cayden Caillean comes to Valeros in a vision and says "don't do this, she will go on to murder a thousand people", and he saves her anyway, what then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the reason the Paladin was given special status to begin with was "doing the right thing in the right way" is inherently more heroic than deviating from such. It's just that the belief was that "doing things by the book" was considered inherently lawful, whereas the way the Champion is structured we simply notice that the Redeemer and Liberator are obligated to do things by the book, it's just a different book.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the reason the Paladin was given special status to begin with was "doing the right thing in the right way" is inherently more heroic than deviating from such. It's just that the belief was that "doing things by the book" was considered inherently lawful, whereas the way the Champion is structured we simply notice that the Redeemer and Liberator are obligated to do things by the book, it's just a different book.

Right, but that's a subjective value judgment as to what the right thing & the right way are. Which, again, is fine for a given creative to assert in their own work but people are going to disagree on that point.

Edit: That's also a thematic choice, which, again, creatives are allowed to make, but it doesn't address the mechanical issues i.e., why doesn't everyone who does the right thing in the right way get paladin powers if their powers come from being that lawful & good.

Just gives a reasoning behind the wonky metaphysics; "I wanted to show that lawful good is the right way to do good which is why chaotic good and neutral good aren't pulling their weight in the cosmic struggle against evil".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Because that is the one most relatable to most human beings as we know it, and that the whole point of this exercise is one of entertainment than of fundamental realism (where, surprise surprise, we aren't the center of the universe). If we don't relate to the characters who exist in the universe, then the idea of it being entertaining becomes far less likely.

In that case, alignment is simply worthless because it doesn't treat the setting as anything real. Our usual values cannot apply to that world and the system doesn't even make an effort to explain its own moral philosophy. It would be far better to ditch the idea entirely and replace it with a system of personal values and connections because that is what we know people actually use when making moral judgments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One might argue that the reason the paladin has special status in the first place is because somebody thought, "Damn, wouldn't it be neat to play a proper holy knight in shining armour?" and then published such a subclass in the Greyhawk supplement with the requirement that they have exceptional Charisma and have been "Lawful from the commencement of play for that character". Back in those days (before I was born, surely) monsters and thieves were chaotic, and heroes were lawful, so a paladin's dedication to law was identical to a dedication to being a paragon of moral purity--combined with the most difficult stat requirements in the game. Later editions even decided that only humans could even qualify to become paladins, for a while.

The modern state of the game has more nuance, so it would seem pretty strange to me that the Paladin still stuck in a niche it hasn't occupied (that is, super-rare, super-powered fighter dedicated unswervingly to law) since at least 3rd edition. The reason why Paladins had to be Lawful Good was because Law was Good and Good was Law, and because the Paladin was a specialty noble knight subclass of the Fighter. Their alignment and ability score restrictions were thought to be the balancing factor for their extraordinary abilities--balancing their strength with rarity.

The game has grown and changed a lot since then, and FormerFiend puts it well; I don't think there needs to be a rule in the universe that only lawful good gods (or lawful good causes and philosophies, in past ages) are capable of inspiring Champions of justice. Or, for that matter, other Champions of diverse causes, just or unjust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Because that is the one most relatable to most human beings as we know it, and that the whole point of this exercise is one of entertainment than of fundamental realism (where, surprise surprise, we aren't the center of the universe). If we don't relate to the characters who exist in the universe, then the idea of it being entertaining becomes far less likely.
In that case, alignment is simply worthless because it doesn't treat the setting as anything real. Our usual values cannot apply to that world and the system doesn't even make an effort to explain its own moral philosophy. It would be far better to ditch the idea entirely and replace it with a system of personal values and connections because that is what we know people actually use when making moral judgments.

Certainly, one of the biggest problems I have had in the past with alignment is getting its presence as a fact of the cosmos to feel like anything natural. It gets weird quickly to talk of people believing in lawful goodness or chaos if we take it that people are aware that these forces exist in the multiverse, and attributing behaviours to alignments is hard not to seem forced.

Certainly it makes more sense for alignment to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but that's the route that brings us here to debates about alignment and what is the moral and ethical weight of being an disorganised person or sending coconut-laden swallows to take out a guard.

(PS. Rip Tanner, how are you so fast?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The game does explain its moral philosophy multiple times. But people always choose to ignore it thinking that they already know it, which is vastly different. The way the rules are written you could play the game now or in 1000 years and as long as the translation remains decent people will have the exact same definition for what is "Good v Evil" and "Lawful vs Chaotic": Regardless of how IRL morals evolve from here to then.

Which is what always trips people up and why the stupid paladin falls questions always show up (I still hate them). People in trying to create a gotcha or applying random philosophy that is not relevant to the game create ideas that the game creators didn't even think about much less planned.

The whole "oh but if you saved this person, they would become a great evil" is written backwards and breaks so many rules of good writing:

    [1st.] It is a leading question where no matter how a person responds the person asking the question will complain: If you answer "yes" they would say you are evil for killing a child that is currently innocent, if you answer "no" they would say you are evil because you let the child live. There is literally no winning.
    [2nd.] The question assumes that the person already knows the future, when in game 99% of the time that would not be something a player would know. It is literally metagaming to say you killed the child because they would become evil, thus you are evil.
    [3rd.] That question is by definition a classic "dark prophesy" and an information hazard. By telling a character that they must act to stop something or else a great evil happens they become the evil one for doing it, but they also become the evil one for not stopping it. So, you end up in a situation where the mere act of learning about something causes it to happen regardless of how it would have happened otherwise.
    [4th.] It breaks the very important rules of tragedies that the hero falls because of a tragic flaw by instead forcing it to happen regardless of narrative sense.

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

Paladins had extra power because Lawful Good by definition is the most stagnant and otherwise passive version of good. It is literally the alignment of "eventually good things will happen if we just strictly follow the law". Meanwhile, literally everyone else (including Lawful Neutral) is happy to bend some rules to advance their goals. So as a way to incentivized actually playing Lawful Good, you have paladin that reward you for keeping up with those rules regardless of how monotonous they might be.

Unlike monks whose power came from self-perfection (requires that you be strict about your behavior) or barbarians whose power came from literal anger and adrenaline (requires that you have little patience and being prone to anger).

Regardless that whole conversation about class alignment is a sidetrack to the actual conversation on alignment.


Eh, barbarians "requiring" to be impatient or actually having anger management issues is dubious. It's a logical line of reasoning based on its surface level of flavor but there's a whole lot more you can do with the concept of a barbarian. Monks flavor is a bit more hard coded in strict martial arts and training so I'll give you that but it's not a hard rule you must follow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Paladins had extra power because Lawful Good by definition is the most stagnant and otherwise passive version of good. It is literally the alignment of "eventually good things will happen if we just strictly follow the law".

Having just spent a good portion of my evening reading the Complete Paladin's Handbook (AD&D 2nd edition), I can confirm that this view was not the norm, nor especially consistent with older editions' view of the class. In fact, a section I just read flat out stated the rarity of Paladins over 30 years of age, with the assumption that those who don't fall from an infraction of their ethos are probably dead from their commandment to oppose evil at all costs.

On the other leg, from a meta perspective I think you may have it backward. Paladins don't seem to have so much power to incentivise players toward Lawful Good characters, but rather their Lawful Good restriction was meant as a justification for having so much power. Lawful Good was not seen as stagnant, it was seen as exceptionally difficult to maintain without deviation.


Temperans wrote:
The game does explain its moral philosophy multiple times. But people always choose to ignore it thinking that they already know it, which is vastly different. The way the rules are written you could play the game now or in 1000 years and as long as the translation remains decent people will have the exact same definition for what is "Good v Evil" and "Lawful vs Chaotic": Regardless of how IRL morals evolve from here to then.

You might be correct if the rules didn't explicitly say:

"Keep in mind that alignment is a complicated subject, and even acts that might be considered good can be used for nefarious purposes, and vice versa. The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment." - CRB, pg. 28

This comes even before it makes a very weak attempt to define Good vs. Evil and Lawful vs. Chaotic which get less than 250 words devoted to their definition.

Quote:

The whole "oh but if you saved this person, they would become a great evil" is written backwards and breaks so many rules of good writing:

    [1st.] It is a leading question where no matter how a person responds the person asking the question will complain: If you answer "yes" they would say you are evil for killing a child that is currently innocent, if you answer "no" they would say you are evil because you let the child live. There is literally no winning.
    [2nd.] The question assumes that the person already knows the future, when in game 99% of the time that would not be something a player would know. It is literally metagaming to say you killed the child because they would become evil, thus you are evil.
    [3rd.] That question is by definition a classic "dark prophesy" and an information hazard. By telling a character that they must act to stop something or else a great evil happens they become the evil one for doing it, but they also become the evil one for not stopping it. So, you end up in a situation where the mere act of learning about something causes it to happen regardless of how it would have happened otherwise.
    [4th.] It breaks the very important rules of tragedies that the hero falls because of a tragic flaw by instead forcing it to happen regardless of narrative

What does a logically consistent moral philosophy have to do with writing and storytelling?

To a universe ruled by fundamental forces the rules for what alignment an act is must axiomatically follow those fundamental rules. Thus for Pathfinder's system to be logically sound it must be unplayable as nobody, not even the GM, can know for certain the complete impact of every player's action. Hence the need for a system that is compatible with actual observed human morality and psychology.


FormerFiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the reason the Paladin was given special status to begin with was "doing the right thing in the right way" is inherently more heroic than deviating from such. It's just that the belief was that "doing things by the book" was considered inherently lawful, whereas the way the Champion is structured we simply notice that the Redeemer and Liberator are obligated to do things by the book, it's just a different book.

Right, but that's a subjective value judgment as to what the right thing & the right way are. Which, again, is fine for a given creative to assert in their own work but people are going to disagree on that point.

Edit: That's also a thematic choice, which, again, creatives are allowed to make, but it doesn't address the mechanical issues i.e., why doesn't everyone who does the right thing in the right way get paladin powers if their powers come from being that lawful & good.

Just gives a reasoning behind the wonky metaphysics; "I wanted to show that lawful good is the right way to do good which is why chaotic good and neutral good aren't pulling their weight in the cosmic struggle against evil".

Same reason why not everyone has the power of a cleric for every god. The power of every single weird bloodline they may have inherited from who knows how long. Why magus went from a 6th spell level class with plenty of spell slot to a 10th spell level class with just 4 spell slots.

It is all about game balance and narrative. You don't just have to do things right. But you also have to make the right choices in how you train in the background, and the choices need to be those that are available to you in the first place. That is not a failing on the alignment system for existing. It's a failure on the fact that there is only so much content that can be released at any given time.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Paladins had extra power because Lawful Good by definition is the most stagnant and otherwise passive version of good. It is literally the alignment of "eventually good things will happen if we just strictly follow the law".

Having just spent a good portion of my evening reading the Complete Paladin's Handbook (AD&D 2nd edition), I can confirm that this view was not the norm, nor especially consistent with older editions' view of the class. In fact, a section I just read flat out stated the rarity of Paladins over 30 years of age, with the assumption that those who don't fall from an infraction of their ethos are probably dead from their commandment to oppose evil at all costs.

On the other leg, from a meta perspective I think you may have it backward. Paladins don't seem to have so much power to incentivise players toward Lawful Good characters, but rather their Lawful Good restriction was meant as a justification for having so much power. Lawful Good was not seen as stagnant, it was seen as exceptionally difficult to maintain without deviation.

That is what I meant by stagnant but was having trouble finding the right words.

I have no idea what people 30 years ago were thinking, I know what I have seen from playing for the last 5-7 years. That is that most people do not like to play lawful good character or have no idea how to play them without easily falling for the lawful stupid or stupid good tropes. Both of which really quickly fall into lawful evil and chaotic good respectively.

You can easily see it now a days with how often people make chaotic and neutral characters, even the lawful characters can often read more as "slightly strict neutral" than actually lawful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean for a start I'd question why I need to accept the definition of morality that the game sets down in front of me. Certainly not everyone who's ever used the system has; I know of a few third party ogl settings that excise the alignment chart completely or otherwise put their own spin or interpretation on it. Every new edition, every new third party setting that includes the alignment system & puts more effort into doing so than a simple copy/paste job, they all change it. Sometimes subtly, sometimes drastically.

Which goes to the heart of it; the game doesn't have a morality, the developers, the writers, the people making the product do. From case to case, what they include in the alignment system may be a reflection of what the person who wrote it - or the whole team if it was a collaborative effort - feel about morality in their actual lives, or it might be a well thought out examination of morality within the context of the setting that they don't personally feel is applicable to real life, or it might be a shallow & basic understanding of the alignment system as it's existed before they wrote it down & they're just regurgitating it, or any number of other things.

So that can range from, a well thought out theory of morality for the purpose of a given setting meant to convey moral themes & lessons or examine the concept of morality(whether any of us as individuals agree with the assertion or not being aside from the point), or lazy adherence to an archaic system with no thought towards what it actually means in terms of how it applies to the setting you're working with or why you're including it outside of inertial obligation, and everything in between.

Now, all of this being said, like I mentioned earlier, a given creative does have the right to make assertions about how things work within the context of their creative work. Myself & every other outsider & audience member can have our own opinions about those assertions, but within the context of the work in question, those assertions are how it works.

...Except that concept gets a *lot* fuzzier when it comes to works of fiction that are shared, collaborative efforts, and where & when those get parsed out to different creatives in different mediums. Andrzej Sapkowski can assert that Witcher mutations only work on boys & girls can't become witchers in the biological sense, and again, I can have my opinions on that(sorry for going to the genderlocked well twice), but so far as his own novels & short stories are concerned, that's a fundamental law of the universe until he ever changes his mind.

But that isn't a fundamental law of the universe so far as CD Projek Red is concerned, or so far as the showrunners of the Witcher tv series are concerned. If CDPR decides that the next witcher game is going to have a custom character & the player can customize their gender, well, Andrzej's contract with them didn't give him veto power over that kind of thing, nor with netflix. So, who knows how either of those properties handle the unanswered question going forward to the entirely reasonable & calm response of the fanbase.

Closer to home, Ed Greenwood originally envisioned that out of the gods of the Forgotten Realms, only Mystra could empower mortals as her "chosen" to act as mini-avatars on Faerun. But while his contract with WotC is absurdly favorable, he can't overrule or retcon out the fact that other writers gave other gods the ability to empower chosen, to the point that it became a defining aspect of the setting with it being a template in 3.5 and a playable epic destiny in 4e.

All this to say that when a property gets opened up to new creatives, they're going to have new ideas & different interpretations.

What's more, within the concept of ttrpgs as a medium, we're all different creatives who are, to our own small degree, participating in the creative process by using this system to tell our own stories. Sometimes in established settings, sometimes in settings entirely or partly of our own invention.

And yes, simply house ruling things & conveying the changes you've made to the alignment system & it's implications to your table in session 0, is one approach to that.

But another approach to that is vocalizing why you think the assertions made in the alignment section of a book are nonsense & what changes should be made.

Personally I'm in favor of the second option.

I will say, though, that I genuinely struggle to imagine that, had the situation been reversed, if we were in a timeline where the paladin had never had a single alignment restriction and was specifically tied to a deity & had to abide by a deity-specific code of conduct or the like, if that had happened? I genuinely don't imagine that anyone, or at least anyone in any kind of significant number, would be arguing or advocating for making the class more restrictive & confining it to a single alignment spot.


S.L.Acker wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The game does explain its moral philosophy multiple times. But people always choose to ignore it thinking that they already know it, which is vastly different. The way the rules are written you could play the game now or in 1000 years and as long as the translation remains decent people will have the exact same definition for what is "Good v Evil" and "Lawful vs Chaotic": Regardless of how IRL morals evolve from here to then.

You might be correct if the rules didn't explicitly say:

"Keep in mind that alignment is a complicated subject, and even acts that might be considered good can be used for nefarious purposes, and vice versa. The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment." - CRB, pg. 28

This comes even before it makes a very weak attempt to define Good vs. Evil and Lawful vs. Chaotic which get less than 250 words devoted to their definition.

Quote:

The whole "oh but if you saved this person, they would become a great evil" is written backwards and breaks so many rules of good writing:

    [1st.] It is a leading question where no matter how a person responds the person asking the question will complain: If you answer "yes" they would say you are evil for killing a child that is currently innocent, if you answer "no" they would say you are evil because you let the child live. There is literally no winning.
    [2nd.] The question assumes that the person already knows the future, when in game 99% of the time that would not be something a player would know. It is literally metagaming to say you killed the child because they would become evil, thus you are evil.
    [3rd.] That question is by definition a classic "dark prophesy" and an information hazard. By telling a character that they must act to stop something or else a great evil happens they become the evil one for doing it, but they also become the evil one for not stopping it. So, you end up in a situation where the mere act of learning about
...

Rant response, not going to going to answer follow ups on it:

That statement does not negate what I said. The rules are clear on what each alignment is about, that rule states that the GM is the final arbiter for deciding where whatever a player did fit. The two statements are not contradictory.

First, you the one who mentioned logically consistent moral philosophy don't try to put words in my mouth. Second, logical consistency is one of the most important parts of good writing even if what you are doing: Even if what you are doing is surreal, it requires some amount of logical thinking to not result as pure gibberish.

Third, you are saying that if a game is logically sound than it is impossible to play because it requires perfect knowledge, but that is complete and utter bunk and lacking in basic reasoning. By your logic chess (one of the oldest games) is impossible to play because its logically sound move set is impossible to calculate without the aid of a super advanced algorithm, which is a straight refutation of your assertion. An even bigger refutation is the fact that you are stating that we humans cannot possibly play a game unless its rules for alignment are compatible with IRL morality/philosophy which is the equivalent of saying that we cannot roleplay or imagine anything that is not based on reality (which is hilarious given we are talking about a high sci-fantasy ttrpg.

Finally, your whole thing about "logical sound is impossible because it requires complete knowledge" breaks down when you consider that the Entscheidungsproblem (an algorithm that states if the input is universally true or false) is impossible. The best you can do is use the known information to make a reasonable guess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
That statement does not negate what I said. The rules are clear on what each alignment is about, that rule states that the GM is the final arbiter for deciding where whatever a player did fit. The two statements are not contradictory.

They are absolutely not clear on that. Using Good as an example:

"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"

Does doing any amount of such work shift a character from neutral to good or is there a threshold? How does this system rate withholding something now because you anticipate being able to use it to provide a greater good later? What if you withhold something perishable, like a spell slot, and don't find a use for it later? These things are all questions that make defining good in any level of detail impossible.

For a world where good is a fundamental force, it seems a major problem that we cannot precisely define even the first-order effects of any given action, let alone second and third-order effects. For a setting where alignment is as fundamental as the speed of light, we should have defined quanta and physics-like rules for exactly how alignment works or we shouldn't have it at all.

Quote:
Second, logical consistency is one of the most important parts of good writing even if what you are doing: Even if what you are doing is surreal, it requires some amount of logical thinking to not result as pure gibberish.

Given how much of Golarion's current lore is built on retcons and handwavium I wouldn't say the setting is logically consistent. If the creative team wrote a world that made sense, instead of trying to create an obviously unreal theme park, then you might have a basis to argue from. They are not writing something nearly as tightly consistent as the Cosmere or Mazalan settings.

Quote:
By your logic chess (one of the oldest games) is impossible to play because its logically sound move set is impossible to calculate without the aid of a super advanced algorithm

Chess isn't a fundamental rule of a fictional universe and, unlike alignment as written, actually can be solved by logic even if that logic isn't something a human brain can easily use to play a game of Chess. Alignment must be resolvable to a high degree because it is a fundamental property of Pathfinder's fictional universe. This isn't optional in such a setting any more than gravity is optional in reality.

Quote:
An even bigger refutation is the fact that you are stating that we humans cannot possibly play a game unless its rules for alignment are compatible with IRL morality/philosophy which is the equivalent of saying that we cannot roleplay or imagine anything that is not based on reality (which is hilarious given we are talking about a high sci-fantasy ttrpg.

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we cannot possibly recreate the types of calculations needed to resolve how moral something is within a system where morality exists as a fundamental universal constant and thus cannot even approximate they way morality would actually work in such a universe. Fundamentally, we cannot approach Golarion as if it is a real place because the rules of alignment, among others, simply do not allow us to do so.

Quote:
Finally, your whole thing about "logical sound is impossible because it requires complete knowledge" breaks down when you consider that the Entscheidungsproblem (an algorithm that states if the input is universally true or false) is impossible. The best you can do is use the known information to make a reasonable guess.

That is all well and good for our reality and our understanding of physics, but that argument dooms any attempt to treat alignment as it must be treated within Pathfinder's universe. There is no fuzziness to how any given action interacts with alignment in that universe only uncertainty in the measurement.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Paladins had extra power because Lawful Good by definition is the most stagnant and otherwise passive version of good. It is literally the alignment of "eventually good things will happen if we just strictly follow the law".

Having just spent a good portion of my evening reading the Complete Paladin's Handbook (AD&D 2nd edition), I can confirm that this view was not the norm, nor especially consistent with older editions' view of the class. In fact, a section I just read flat out stated the rarity of Paladins over 30 years of age, with the assumption that those who don't fall from an infraction of their ethos are probably dead from their commandment to oppose evil at all costs.

On the other leg, from a meta perspective I think you may have it backward. Paladins don't seem to have so much power to incentivise players toward Lawful Good characters, but rather their Lawful Good restriction was meant as a justification for having so much power. Lawful Good was not seen as stagnant, it was seen as exceptionally difficult to maintain without deviation.

That is what I meant by stagnant but was having trouble finding the right words.

I have no idea what people 30 years ago were thinking, I know what I have seen from playing for the last 5-7 years. That is that most people do not like to play lawful good character or have no idea how to play them without easily falling for the lawful stupid or stupid good tropes. Both of which really quickly fall into lawful evil and chaotic good respectively.

You can easily see it now a days with how often people make chaotic and neutral characters, even the lawful characters can often read more as "slightly strict neutral" than actually lawful.

I must be misunderstanding you. I do not generally experience that players dislike playing Lawful Good (though I find new players are quite attracted to Chaotic Neutral...) nor have significant difficulty understanding it. I did have one player quite fundamentally misunderstand Chaotic Good into what I would describe as a very Judge Dredd character, but that's another story.

From my reading of the Complete Paladin's Handbook, I gauge that the Paladin was not given the Lawful or Good alignments because that combination is inherently unpleasant or passive. I do not get the sense that "Good things will eventually happen by following the law" is an accurate description of how the writers (if not players) of the game understood Lawful Good 30 years ago, nor "Lawful" at 45 years ago.

Therefore it still does not follow to me that Paladins had extra power because Lawful Good was an unpleasant nor even a difficult to follow alignment. This seems to put the cart before the horse--rather I would suggest that the fantasy of a powerful holy knight came first. At the time Good was not an alignment, so the Paladin was the paragon of Law and maintained a strict code of behaviour. All other things flowed from the image of a holy knight devoted to a higher cause, save perhaps the stringent Cha requirements, which have explicitly been posed as one of the balance factors by making it difficult to roll a Paladin, much less have the option to play.

As an example to the contrary, the Handbook suggests that a Paladin must follow just laws of all lands, even if they are different from one's own (the example of a land where it is customary for a woman to have two husbands is given) but also that a Paladin will not honour a law that runs contrary to their alignment, and that especially abhorrent practices may compel the Paladin to take direct action to attempt to change the law regardless whether the practice is considered acceptable (torture and slavery are used as examples), and might take steps to rescue a few victims before circumstances force them to leave the area. This doesn't paint an especially passive vision of Lawful Good to me.

---

On that note, regarding the earlier question by FormerFiend about the origin of the Paladin's powers, the Complete Paladin's Handbook does give an explicit answer for the sake of the 2e AD&D Paladin. It is the belief in a noble authority greater than themselves which grants them their power that edition of the game--something which, as the Fiend mentions, has not remained consistent over the years.

Complete Paladin's Handbook wrote:
Regardless of whether a paladin has faith in a religion or philosophy all work the same way in the context of the game. A paladin's devotion is sufficiently intense to attract the magical energy necessary to cast spells and give him his special powers. As with a lawful good religion, a lawful good philosophy requires strict adherence to a set of lawful good principles, characterized by the strictures and virtues of the paladin's ethos.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Because that is the one most relatable to most human beings as we know it, and that the whole point of this exercise is one of entertainment than of fundamental realism (where, surprise surprise, we aren't the center of the universe). If we don't relate to the characters who exist in the universe, then the idea of it being entertaining becomes far less likely.
In that case, alignment is simply worthless because it doesn't treat the setting as anything real. Our usual values cannot apply to that world and the system doesn't even make an effort to explain its own moral philosophy. It would be far better to ditch the idea entirely and replace it with a system of personal values and connections because that is what we know people actually use when making moral judgments.

I mean, this is a game about entertainment and fantasy, where people are flinging fireballs and wrestling dragons to the ground. The idea that "it doesn't treat the setting as anything real" is already out the window; I really don't understand the basis behind that complaint. You can have things be relateable and not be real, otherwise storytelling as a whole doesn't function. Would it be more realistic that we aren't the center of the universe? Sure. Have there been stories that have been told that do this, and are really effective? Absolutely. But are those the stories that this game wants to focus on? That mostly depends on the players, but the default assumption is that the game focuses on the story of the players, not the story of the entirety of the universe. If you want something like that, I would suggest a different system, because this system doesn't exactly handle that sort of thing the best.

That's odd of you to say that, since it goes out of its way to explain how chaotic beings behave, how lawful beings behave, how good beings behave, how evil beings behave, etc. It's not going to quantify every single instance (because it's realistically impossible to do so), but suggesting that the system didn't make an effort is patently false, since it states what each sort of alignment commonly does or acts, and it's not extremely difficult to extrapolate alignments from other similar actions.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
But, in my eye, you don't get to say Valeros committed an evil action because he saved Abrogail Thrune's life and she went on to murder a thousand people. He saved someone's life. That's as far as the moral calculation goes.
I tend to agree, but if Cayden Caillean comes to Valeros in a vision and says "don't do this, she will go on to murder a thousand people", and he saves her anyway, what then?

I go to karaoke instead of arguing about alignment and I miss so much. Anyway...

Cayden Caillean is not the arbiter of Good. His opinion on what Valeros should do is not relevant to the alignment of Valeros' actions. It is relevant to Cayden's moral philosophy and the world he wants to see put into action on Golarion. He might be warning Valeros of the most likely outcome of his actions, but that doesn't change that saving someone's life isn't a neutral or evil thing.

Because the future is not set and people's choices are their own. Cayden could, in fact, be wrong. Thrune could be saved by Valeros and decide that being an evil queen is for suckers and run off with the Madmartigan expy and not hurt anyone ever again.

Saying "My God said she'd do bad things in the future" is attempting to abdicate responsibility for a choice that Valeros made and it might make him sleep better at night, but it doesn't change the alignment of his action or inaction.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
S.L.Acker wrote:


To my mind, all of Golarion for all the time it will exist in a state suitable for mortal life, is insignificant next to the likely infinite worlds and immortal beings guiding them that should exist in the broader universe. So why should what a single mortal does, for ill or good, matter in the scheme of things?

A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement.

She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied,

“Well, I made a difference for that one!”


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Following up on what S.L.Acker said regarding alignment & the scale & scope of the universe, I've always found thst the interpretation- which does go back to the origins of the game - that the written laws of mortal society are inherently "lawful" on a grand scale to be a logical fallacy & the result of, or at least evidence of, a strong bias towards a certain type of society. The same kind of biases that would lead one to assign the smarchetype of the European knight in shining armor as the ultimate paragon of goodness.

Even disregarding the obviously evil examples in the handbook mentioned above, laws are made by people with any number of flaws & failings & can be arbitrary, archaic, erratic & distabalizing, corrupt, & unjust in any number of ways more subtle & less obviously than slavery & legalized torture.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

@S.L.Acker - There is a concept known as "verisimilitude." It's the quality of a work of fiction where it might operate under very, very different rules from our own world, but it's internally consistent enough to allow for suspension of disbelief and immersion. Your argument that alignment is invalid because it's different from our world is... odd. Plus, it only seems different because we're getting a metaphysical look at Golarion that's impossible for our own. Atheists would say it doesn't exist, religious folk will say you're looking in the wrong way, agnostics with a scientific vocabulary will say it's "unfalsifiable." The rules of our world and the rules of Golarion are, presumably, different, but not so different that it invalidates values. Here, let me break it down.

1. In Golarion, Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are real, fundamental forces. They're SUPER simple. Good = general benevolence, willing to expend time, effort, or other resources to benefit others more than the self. Evil = general selfishness, willing (possibly even happy) to hurt others to benefit the self. Law = a tendency to value traditions, routines, and other social norms and expectations. Chaos = valuing freedom and fluidity over structures. Neutrality is a point between either pair where you couldn't be said to be decidedly one or the other. That's it.

2. There are hundreds of gods with their own values that exist within the nine-point grid the above system creates. You could choose to follow any one of these dozens of belief sets, or you could choose to follow some other set of values, and that's an entirely valid way to live your life.

3. Other people will judge your values based on THEIR values, but it's understood that you're not generally expected to share values 100%, because there are so many different extant sets of values. Just try to follow the norms of the society you live in well enough to not cause disruption, or you won't live there any more. Unless, by your value system, you judge that society's values as intolerable, and then you can try to change it.

4. The average person probably doesn't interact with the underlying concepts too much. They believe what they believe, they go about their lives appropriately, they die, and then they go to whatever fate awaits them after. It's only a very rare few that interact with the planes, extraplanar beings, alignment damage, etc.

In short, on the ground level, it's not too dissimilar to our world in many ways. If you can't suspend your disbelief this far, what are you looking for in a fantasy TTRPG?

@Temperans - It sounds like people at your table don't like playing Lawful Good, which is fine, or don't understand what it represents, which is unfortunate, but puts you in a poor situation to try to discuss it online. Being generally benevolent and in favor of beneficial social structures doesn't make one inherently passive, stupid, or any other failing. Your group might or might not be made up of revolutionary-minded people who think burning down the existing order is an inherent good, so they have trouble understanding the viewpoint that social stability is beneficial, aspects of the existing order emerged out of necessity for the community, and that institutions, communities, and culture are worth preserving for the sake of the people within them.

When playing a Lawful Good character, consider that they are trying to achieve Good through the mechanism of Law. They generally value ordered systems as a method to achieve beneficial things for people. If a system fails to achieve that, it needs to be adjusted or scrapped and replaced, but there's a way to do that. That's how governments are supposed to work. That's basically it. Any "Lawful Stupid" or "Stupid Good" stuff that emerges after that is reflective of your group in some way.

Apart from those two arguments - the consequentialist morality argument makes me rage and cringe beyond the ability to meaningfully contribute.


I maintain that alignment doesn't need to be dropped completely- but it is in dire need of a face-lift due to modern sensibilities and to distance it from memes and gygax both.


Freehold DM wrote:
I maintain that alignment doesn't need to be dropped completely- but it is in dire need of a face-lift due to modern sensibilities and to distance it from memes and gygax both.

We have seen this sentiment a bit in this thread.

Distancing from memes? I think we need to stay in touch with cultural trends. Perhaps distancing from the worst stereotypes? That I could agree with.

The thing is that people use memes and stereotypes as an aid to understanding and as mental short cuts. Obviously there can be bad consequences from that we need to be aware of. But likewise we also need to understand it is not going to stop, it is a core part of how people think...

As far as face lift for modern sensibilities and distancing from Gygax - What more do you want? I mean what is actually in PF2 as opposed to what you are remembering from older games. PF2 alignment system is very light.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The mechanical limitations of PF2's alignment system kinda suck.

The thematic ones are generally fine though. Again, I feel like a lot of the arguments against it start with distorting the system into the worst and most absurdly caricatured possible version of itself, which is just kind of whatever.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

IIRC this whole thing started because Gygax was a fan of Michael Moorcock's "Eternal Champion" stories, where the conflict was between Order and Chaos, and Good and Evil weren't really an issue. So don't blame Gygax, blame Moorcock. :-)


Freehold DM wrote:
I maintain that alignment doesn't need to be dropped completely- but it is in dire need of a face-lift due to modern sensibilities and to distance it from memes and gygax both.

Don't like alignment mechanics, or in the setting at your table? Houserule them out or ignore them. I've run whole homebrew campaigns where it just never came up.

Want to distance yourself from memes? Don't play with players who can't separate memes from actual play.

Want to distance yourself from Gygax? Don't invite him over to play.

Squiggit wrote:
The mechanical limitations of PF2's alignment system kinda suck.

I agree, and tend to ignore them. Benefits of not playing in any kind of organized and official game.

Squiggit wrote:
The thematic ones are generally fine though. Again, I feel like a lot of the arguments against it start with distorting the system into the worst and most absurdly caricatured possible version of itself, which is just kind of whatever.

Again, I agree, but this is mostly a problem with obtuse and argumentative players. Let them wave their red flags proudly, and then bounce them.


1) I was not saying that Paladins are passive, but that lawful good tends to be more passive then other alignments. Because they follow the rules and tend to do good its rare for them to go out of their way to do something bold. Which pair nicely with CE tending to be extremely bold and active.

2) I was not stating that my table doesn't play lawful good. I was stating that people in general seem to look at lawful good more for what powers it gives than for what RP the alignment offers. Although to be fair my opinion is based on a relatively small data size of what I have read/seen, so who knows.

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

Squiggit, agreed I wish alignment wasn't just put it as a ribbon for 2e. It feels like there is even less connection to it than before. Specially with the fact that they obfuscated the whole "must be evil" thing for the undead archetypes (specially lich).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

1) I was not saying that Paladins are passive, but that lawful good tends to be more passive then other alignments. Because they follow the rules and tend to do good its rare for them to go out of their way to do something bold. Which pair nicely with CE tending to be extremely bold and active.

2) I was not stating that my table doesn't play lawful good. I was stating that people in general seem to look at lawful good more for what powers it gives than for what RP the alignment offers. Although to be fair my opinion is based on a relatively small data size of what I have read/seen, so who knows.

The biggest gripe I have against alignment is the name Lawful.

Lawful alignment doesn't mean following the laws.

If it did, which laws? Whose laws? Does a LG character follow Evil laws when in an Evil society?

I'm currently playing a LG character. He generally follows the laws of society because he is Good - not because he is Lawful. He is meticulous in his plans. Thoughtful in his risk taking. And holds grudges for years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
I maintain that alignment doesn't need to be dropped completely- but it is in dire need of a face-lift due to modern sensibilities and to distance it from memes and gygax both.

An alignment overhaul strikes me as attractive, but perhaps a bit impractical. Unless we were to revamp the system from the ground up with new names and associations completely, I fear it is unlikely we would do more than join the chorus of interpretations that already exist. At best I feel, like we could see ourselves added as a footnote to the pop culture understanding of alignment that explains how we differ from the norm.

On the other hand, it could just be possible if we definitively came down on one side or the other of whether alignment is an impersonal cosmic force and XYZ action sways one toward one pole or another, or it is a loose system if tracking general tendencies if creature behaviour... But then the lore has been quite explicit about it being both of those things and the reason why it exists in the setting, so I don't expect that is the right answer for the Lost Okens setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of lawful good being a passive alignment. If I were to label any of the goods as passive, it would be neutral good which I've always taken as more of a, go with the flow type of alignment of general altruism with little call towards proactivity, though I also wouldn't die on the hill if someone had a different interpretation.

I think of both lawful & chaotic good as particularly active alignments in that they're possessed of a more distinct, concrete, & divergent ideas of what good is, and are both motivated to go out & spread it. I'd even be inclined as to say that lawful good is perhaps more proactive than chaotic good in that the default state of lawful seems to be an acknowledgement that on a basic level, chaos is the default state of the universe & laws need to be imposed & enforced. Not necessarily militarily, but, through hard or soft power, lawful societies try to make their surroundings more lawful to further stabilize themselves.

Granted, this is based on an understanding of "lawful" that, as I've previously said, I personally find to be fallacious & the result of a particular bias as to what the layman thinks of as a 'complex society', but however I feel about that characterization & how it reflects real life, I do feel it's an accurate description of the types of societies that the game assigns the 'lawful' designation.

Wayfinders Contributor

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been thinking about the whole concept of neutral champions, and the quandary that designers have said they've had with creating content for them, because neutrality has this whole-middle-of-the-road / not passionate-about-anything reputation.

But that's a fallacy. No one is neutral about everything. Think about one of the most neutral deities of all, Pharasma, and how passionate she is about preserving the cycle of souls and fighting the abomination of undeath. Alignment aside, this is a deity with a CAUSE.

So if we're going with champions that are neither evil nor good, maybe we should be building those champions around different sorts of passions rather than just determining your cause by your alignment.


Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I've been thinking about the whole concept of neutral champions, and the quandary that designers have said they've had with creating content for them, because neutrality has this whole-middle-of-the-road / not passionate-about-anything reputation.

But that's a fallacy. No one is neutral about everything. Think about one of the most neutral deities of all, Pharasma, and how passionate she is about preserving the cycle of souls and fighting the abomination of undeath. Alignment aside, this is a deity with a CAUSE.

So if we're going with champions that are neither evil nor good, maybe we should be building those champions around different sorts of passions rather than just determining your cause by your alignment.

I would love to see neutral champions that fight to maintain cosmic balance between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos. True Neutral could be the end-all perfect harmony of All. Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral could champion Law and Chaos with little regard for Good or Evil. In the absence of the greater Good/Evil, Law, Chaos, and Balance become their cause. I DO like the idea of specific champions for specific gods, domains, or themes.


Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I've been thinking about the whole concept of neutral champions, and the quandary that designers have said they've had with creating content for them, because neutrality has this whole-middle-of-the-road / not passionate-about-anything reputation.

But that's a fallacy. No one is neutral about everything. Think about one of the most neutral deities of all, Pharasma, and how passionate she is about preserving the cycle of souls and fighting the abomination of undeath. Alignment aside, this is a deity with a CAUSE.

So if we're going with champions that are neither evil nor good, maybe we should be building those champions around different sorts of passions rather than just determining your cause by your alignment.

I would love to see neutral champions that fight to maintain cosmic balance between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos. True Neutral could be the end-all perfect harmony of All. Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral could champion Law and Chaos with little regard for Good or Evil. In the absence of the greater Good/Evil, Law, Chaos, and Balance become their cause. I DO like the idea of specific champions for specific gods, domains, or themes.

The Balance stereotype comes up semi-regularly in discussions of Neutrality, but the lore of the setting suggests that, by and large, concerning oneself with the balance if the cosmos is not the hallmark of True Neutral. This is much more a D&D/Greyhawk-ism, though there is at least an extremely nice place for it in the worship of the inscrutable Monad.

Even so, while I would not object to there being an option to play Balance-of-Good-and-Evil Champions in the Neutral or Lawful branches, I would very much rather it not become the default concern of neutral champions. Pharasmas job may at least approach the concept of a balanced cosmos, but she is not the enforcer of that balance, nor are the balances with which Nethys and Gozreh concern themselves anything to do with alignment.

--

To echo Murphy's thoughts, I dislike the perception that neutral characters are inherently less motivated or concerned with aspects of the world. While I don't know what tenets may fit all Neutral Champions, it at least seems like Lawful and Chaotic champions should be very concerned with the maintenance of an orderly social unit (community, family, monastery, organization, the options are various) and absolute independence from the expectations of others respectively. That much seems not too difficult to hash out, though it can get a bit more complicated from there.

Of course, even on this page not everyone agrees what the core of Law and Chaos really mean so no doubt others may hold different visions


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:


The Balance stereotype comes up semi regularly in discussions of Neutrality, but the lord of the setting suggests that, by and large, concerning oneself with the balance if the cosmos is not the hallmark of True Neutral. This is much more a D&D/Greyhawk-ism, though there is at least an extremely nice place for it in the worship of the inscrutable Monad.

Even so, while I would not object to there being an option to play Balance-of-Good-and-Evil Champions in the Neutral or Lawful branches, I would very much rather it not become the default concern of neutral champions. Pharasmas job may at least approach the concept of a balanced cosmos, but she is not the enforcer of that balance, nor are the balances with which Nethys and Gozreh concern themselves anything to do with alignment.

True- and Nethys and Gozreh are much better candidates for focus on domain/theme because they're about magic and nature in an amoral sense, regardless of the extremes of alignment. "Unaligned" feels as appropriate here as Neutral.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Of course, even on this page not everyone agrees what the core of Law and Chaos really mean so no doubt others may hold different visions.

As far as the gods go, I personally consider Law/Chaos, Good/Evil as cosmic forces that bind the universe and the characters' alignment being how aligned they are with those forces (intentionally or not). The subjective good/evil a person may do or feel deed-to-deed is with little "g" and "e", the grand average of their soul is what counts in my reckoning.


The issue there is that you have multiple approaches to what it means. For example a lawful neutral character could:
1. Seek balance of good and evil doing it in a lawful manner.
2. Seek to make lawful the predominant alignment.
3. Seek to protect order and law in all its forms.
Etc.

Also neutral is not the most passive, it seems passive because its the default alignment of everyone. So its hard to notice how much is actually done by neutral characters. Its why it seems like neutral is going with the flow, but notice that redemption (neutral good according to champion) requires a lot of work and initiative on the part of the person seeking to change. While chaotic tends to be the most active because they tend to be a lot more willing to explore and try new things. Good vs Evil is a bit more complicated, but evil tend to require more active participation: For most cases its hard to be evil without actively choosing to do that.


Temperans wrote:

1) I was not saying that Paladins are passive, but that lawful good tends to be more passive then other alignments. Because they follow the rules and tend to do good its rare for them to go out of their way to do something bold. Which pair nicely with CE tending to be extremely bold and active.

2) I was not stating that my table doesn't play lawful good. I was stating that people in general seem to look at lawful good more for what powers it gives than for what RP the alignment offers. Although to be fair my opinion is based on a relatively small data size of what I have read/seen, so who knows.

Lawful Good can look more passive than other alignments, because most of the people who are passive are trying to present themselves as law-abiding and charitable, in order to maintain goodwill in their communities. Even if you're Chaotic Evil, if you don't have the means to enact bloody revolution, it's probably best to keep your mouth shut, fake a smile when dealing with people and institutions, and go seethe about it later, until some psycho warlord comes recruiting. Lawful Good people don't have the same motivations of murder and mayhem that Chaotic Evil people might, but they can actively protect and preserve the people and institutions they value, and that's pretty great.

Temperans wrote:
Squiggit, agreed I wish alignment wasn't just put it as a ribbon for 2e. It feels like there is even less connection to it than before. Specially with the fact that they obfuscated the whole "must be evil" thing for the undead archetypes (specially lich).

Wait, they did? That's weird. I thought that the creation of undead was supposed to be universally evil in this setting? I'm getting mixed messages about that.


Temperans wrote:

The issue there is that you have multiple approaches to what it means. For example a lawful neutral character could:

1. Seek balance of good and evil doing it in a lawful manner.
2. Seek to make lawful the predominant alignment.
3. Seek to protect order and law in all its forms.
Etc.

These are all kind of ridiculous, to be honest. Most people aren't going to be conscious of and aware of the alignment chart in their daily lives. A "Neutral" character is almost never going to be ideologically committed to balance - they're going to favor Good neighbors over Evil ones, as life is just better when people aren't actively trying to screw you over. Alignment is a descriptor you apply to a character that's probably not exactly aware of it, not a team you play for, unless they're one of the extraplanar beings that exist for the purpose of advancing their cause.

A Lawful Neutral character is one that values laws, traditions, and structures, and isn't particularly charitable with their own resources.

Temperans wrote:
Also neutral is not the most passive, it seems passive because its the default alignment of everyone. So its hard to notice how much is actually done by neutral characters. Its why it seems like neutral is going with the flow, but notice that redemption (neutral good according to champion) requires a lot of work and initiative on the part of the person seeking to change. While chaotic tends to be the most active because they tend to be a lot more willing to explore and try new things. Good vs Evil is a bit more complicated, but evil tend to require more active participation: For most cases its hard to be evil without actively choosing to do that.

Why are you so keen on ascribing passivity as an alignment trait? It's just not that. A person in any of the nine boxes could be just as exceedingly motivated as anyone else, depending on their motivations, needs, goals, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll say that my own view on the lawful alignment has more to do with a value on structure in one's personal life than an automatic value towards social structure & conventions. I think of lawful characters as the ones who make schedules, put effort into sticking to them, and get actively perturbed when their schedule is interrupted, who keep their personal spaces organized, who plan rather than improvise, & who take the time to organize a relatively concrete list of values, even if only internally in their head, rather than going off of vibes or gut feelings.

Are they perhaps more inclined to feel favorably about laws, traditions, and structures than non-lawful people? Sure. But they can be dismissive or resentful to any of those things as well while still maintaining a personal order within the space they can exert some control over.


FormerFiend wrote:

I'll say that my own view on the lawful alignment has more to do with a value on structure in one's personal life than an automatic value towards social structure & conventions. I think of lawful characters as the ones who make schedules, put effort into sticking to them, and get actively perturbed when their schedule is interrupted, who keep their personal spaces organized, who plan rather than improvise, & who take the time to organize a relatively concrete list of values, even if only internally in their head, rather than going off of vibes or gut feelings.

Are they perhaps more inclined to feel favorably about laws, traditions, and structures than non-lawful people? Sure. But they can be dismissive or resentful to any of those things as well while still maintaining a personal order within the space they can exert some control over.

An excellent example of a perfectly valid interpretation of Law which nevertheless would be at least an awkward fit, if not actually at odds with the way I tend to understand the orderly alignments. For example, to me it would seem strange to divorce Law and Chaos from one's relationships with other people and focus purely on the personal sphere, much like how Good and Evil tend to be defined at least in large part by interactions with others.

At the same time, while I would expect Lawful ideals to lead to Lawful behaviours, I tend to de-emphasize personality traits as alignment factors. Most such descriptions are usually harmless, but when I see descriptions of Lawful characters being inherently organised by nature, it makes me wonder if this system would shoehorn a person with ADHD into Chaos if they cannot maintain a sufficient standard of organization, regardless what their personal beliefs may be. Likewise, when I see mention that those who would dislike their schedule being disrupted tend to be Lawful, I wonder the same for autistic folk who display that trait.

Of course, I doubt any of that was your intention; I'm not trying to pick for flaws with your system or its logic. Rather, this is the general apprehension I have to seeing personality traits being ascribed alignment significance. I would rather not go down the rabbit hole if we were to inadvertently pathologise alignment behaviours.

It is a bit of a slippery slope kind of objection, I'll admit, but alignment debates can get messy enough already--I'd rather flag the slope's edge so that it may be navigated with due consideration than find us all at the bottom, dishevelled and upset.

151 to 200 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Why do we have Alignment? All Messageboards