| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment restrictions on classes in 1e were stupid, and I am so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e
The alignment restrictions were put in place because of what Paizo, or WoTC with old dnd editions, thought a member of a class should be like
Monks had to be lawful because of the thought they were following codes and were either the obedient student type or the wise master type. Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythology show that monk types didn’t have to be lawful and can be chaotic. So you can’t play the ambitious free spirited traveling young monk type.
Barbarians having to be chaotic didn’t make sense. I imagine it was because the word “chaotic” was taken literally and not in the alignment sense? Like, the leader of a barbarian tribe would make sense to be chaotic. A barbarian who is an honorable warrior, might be lawful good.
And bards being unable to be lawful. Apparently they thought all bards had to be Charlatan types. Because we can’t have a bard who’s about being a supportive ally who encourages others. Or jesters. A jester, arguably a type of bard, serves kings and would make sense for them to be lawful
And assassins having to be evil only. Because being good at taking out certain targets stealthily requires you to be evil? If the game series Assassin’s Creed is anything to go by, it’s possible for an assassin to be good. Multiple examples of assassins fighting for good and taking out evil tyrants or other evil figures. You tell me the assassins during WWII who killed nazis either through poison, stealth kills, disguises or other means are evil?
1e forces your character to act a certain way and that sucks. I’m so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see you are posting in both 1E and 2E forums about this issue. You must feel very strongly about the alignment system in previous editions to vocalize it this much.
Did someone not let you play what you want in a recent PF1 game?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It came up in an unrelated thread and derailed it. In those situations, people are commonly asked to start another, which the OP has done.
I also like 2E's removal of certain alignment restrictions, including that there are now NG and CG pseudo-paladins.
I'm also fine with the 2E cleric being stricter, alignment-wise. (RIP my CG inquisitor of Gorum)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of starting to feel like CaptainRelyk is a bit of a troll.
Barbarians having to be chaotic didn’t make sense. I imagine it was because the word “chaotic” was taken literally and not in the alignment sense? Like, the leader of a barbarian tribe would make sense to be chaotic. A barbarian who is an honorable warrior, might be lawful good.
Perhaps I can offer some insight into this. In past editions, one might say that the difference between Law and Chaos was as much about the difference between Civilization and Wilderness as it was about whether you like to follow rules or have a strict code of ethics. In this sense, Barbarians were required not to be a 'civilized' alignment (minor point of correction; so far as I know Barbarians have never been required to be chaotic, but rather like a Bard, required to be non-lawful).
And assassins having to be evil only. Because being good at taking out certain targets stealthily requires you to be evil? If the game series Assassin’s Creed is anything to go by, it’s possible for an assassin to be good. Multiple examples of assassins fighting for good and taking out evil tyrants or other evil figures. You tell me the assassins during WWII who killed nazis either through poison, stealth kills, disguises or other means are evil?
I believe the contention with the Assassin isn't that you have to be evil to perform a stealth kill--this is quite self-evidently an incorrect assessment given the coexistence of Rogues and Sneak Attack in the game. Rather, the assassin archetype used to depend on being willing to kill anybody exclusively for pay. It was possible to stealth-kill by blade or poison for a good cause, but an assassin wasn't doing it for the cause they were doing it because somebody hired them. Mind you, there is room for argument what this differs from a standard adventurer for hire, but that's a separate debate.
---
All that said, I emphatically agree with the dropping of alignment restrictions to classes. There are some roleplaying guidelines/restrictions that I feel like could be really useful and facilitate creativity, but when classes are intended to be broad archetypes, it works better that any class can have the range it needs to facilitate character concepts. The only alignment restrictions that really make sense to me as far as class is concerned is certain divinely empowered characters needing to maintain their deity's approval, so no evil Sarenites or holy Asmodeans.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythology
Son Goku is the japanese translation of Sun Wukong. They are the same character.
Kind of starting to feel like CaptainRelyk is a bit of a troll.
Hey, if you want to be a certain type of diviner, you pretty much have to be a troll. Well, it isn't technically required, but it's really bad for your health (and the length of your career) if you aren't.
The alignment restrictions on classes ... I am so glad it didn’t carry over to 2e
I'm not sure anyone disagrees. Playing against type is so common it is a trope. Plus people have different ideas about what the alignments mean so it just didn't fit well in many cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythologySon Goku is the japanese translation of Sun Wukong. They are the same character.
But it is very English to steal both concepts and enjoy the differences between them.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of starting to feel like CaptainRelyk is a bit of a troll.
I've had several conversations with them on discord, and I can honestly say that I don't think they are. They've mentioned previously that they're going through a tough time with mental health issues, and have clearly been having strong emotions about a variety of Pathfinder-related topics since first finding online spaces related to it. Although I can see how it may appear this way, I do sincerely believe that their posts are their sincere opinion. As this thread shows, they've been fairly willing to try and move out of threads/similar things to avoid derailing conversations, so if you feel like their posts might be derailing things, I'd encourage you to tell them it feels derail-y :)
Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythologySon Goku is the japanese translation of Sun Wukong. They are the same character.
True, but not true.
Son Goku is the translation into Japanese for Son Wukong.
Goku, from DBZ was heavily inspired by Son Goku/Wukong but is obviously not the same character. Since Wukong is demigod figure who borders on evil at times with some of his actions. Meanwhile Goku is an alien monkey guy who loves to fight but is especially pure of heart and always ready to defend earth from whatever intergalactic peril threatens it next.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except characters like Goku from DBZ or even Wukong from Chinese mythologySon Goku is the japanese translation of Sun Wukong. They are the same character.True, but not true.
Son Goku is the translation into Japanese for Son Wukong.
Goku, from DBZ was heavily inspired by Son Goku/Wukong but is obviously not the same character. Since Wukong is demigod figure who borders on evil at times with some of his actions. Meanwhile Goku is an alien monkey guy who loves to fight but is especially pure of heart and always ready to defend earth from whatever intergalactic peril threatens it next.
I reacted because I found the sentence funny. I fully agree that Goku is super heavily inspired by Sun Wukong and then during DB/DBZ they create a completely different story out of him.
Sounds like the significant differences between the characters in the book Starship Troopers and the movie of the same name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Those are pretty significant differences. The book was good. The movie was BAD.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Those are pretty significant differences. The book was good. The movie was BAD.
The movie is satire,
--C.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Those are pretty significant differences. The book was good. The movie was BAD.
You should really work out on your artistic temperament.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Those are pretty significant differences. The book was good. The movie was BAD.
The movie is satire,
--C.
I thought about that, but then it must be rare satire . . . because it wasn't well done.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The film version is glorious satire, probably the best of Verhoeven’s brilliant little sci-fi trio (my friend group just revisited all three last month!)… but what does that have to do with Alignment-locked Classes, exactly?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The film version is glorious satire, probably the best of Verhoeven’s brilliant little sci-fi trio (my friend group just revisited all three last month!)… but what does that have to do with Alignment-locked Classes, exactly?
Champion subclasses will now be locked to opinions on the Startroopers book and movie, in order to maintain the same number of threads about the class.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The film version is glorious satire, probably the best of Verhoeven’s brilliant little sci-fi trio (my friend group just revisited all three last month!)… but what does that have to do with Alignment-locked Classes, exactly?
Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic, keftiu. You're doing your part!
;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The film version is glorious satire, probably the best of Verhoeven’s brilliant little sci-fi trio (my friend group just revisited all three last month!)… but what does that have to do with Alignment-locked Classes, exactly?Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic, keftiu. You're doing your part!
;)
Wants to Know More!
:>
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Those are pretty significant differences. The book was good. The movie was BAD.
The movie is satire,
--C.
I thought about that, but then it must be rare satire . . . because it wasn't well done.
I am left to wonder if you must have seen some bastardized version of the film that was censored for cable TV and also chopped up to fit in an advertiser-friendly 1.5-hour timeslot with plenty of commercial breaks. If not, I think maybe you went into watching it thinking it was a serious film, or maybe perhaps you just have an overall distaste for camp satire because ST is actually remarkably well done. Either way, your opinion is your own to keep and I won't blame you for it, though I would advise that it may be worth putting on a rewatch list.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so happy to have alignment gone.
For my thoughts on alignment, I quote another movie: "Nuke the entire site alignment from orbit--it's the only way to be sure"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*is quiet about alignment because almost nobody agrees with my take on it xD*
I mean Starship Trooper movie is result of movie writers being like "holy frick this book presents super mega fascist military government as great thing" and making fun of it
They misunderstood what they were reading then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so happy to have alignment gone.
Kinda unhappy about it, because it brought some structure to characters and gave D&D/Pathfinder a good bit of its identity. Also, thinking about a world where deities enforce certain behaviour in their followers was an interesting thought exercise. I mean, that will still be in the game with edicts and anathemas, so maybe I should focus more on that. Ah, well, time moves on and so do concepts.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They misunderstood what they were reading then.*is quiet about alignment because almost nobody agrees with my take on it xD*
I mean Starship Trooper movie is result of movie writers being like "holy frick this book presents super mega fascist military government as great thing" and making fun of it
It seems to be general take on the book tbh mostly because of its general "soldiers are awesome" and "protagonist goes full hard on war crimes" factor
I saw a review of this book that suggested the Federation is racist because they restricted the franchise to veterans of federal service— which means, as the book says to those who pay attention, any service, not just the military. Rico’s friend Carl didn’t end up in the military, he ended up doing scientific research.
Juan Rico was Filipino — from the Philippines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so happy to have alignment gone.For my thoughts on alignment, I quote another movie: "Nukethe entire sitealignment from orbit--it's the only way to be sure"
1. Purge it with fire and brimstone.
2. Purge the fire and brimstone with fire and brimstone.3. Hit the site with a tactical nuke from high orbit.
4. Do this on a planet we don't need, and then hit the planet with a Death Star.
5. Take the remains of all that and have Chuck Norris roundhouse kick it while Mr. T simultaneously pities it.
Nothing less than Total Existence Failure will do.
The review said racist. Heinlein was neither racist nor fascist. Verhoeven's take (he directed the movie) on the novel was colored, IMO, by the fact that he grew up in occupied Holland under the Nazis.
Agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph.
Tectorman: if you hold the high orbitals you don't need nukes, you just need "rods from God" -- a weapon concept dreamed up, as I recall, by Jerry Pournelle.