The alignment restrictions on classes in 1e aren’t fun , 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.
Since 1.5 ed AD&D I have played under houserules where the only alignment restrictions are that divinely powered characters must have alignments that match their deity/ philosophy/ totem spirit/ what-have-you. So I can't really answer your question, but agree with your overall point.
The alignment system has never really sat well with me. I think it's spawned too many "its what my character would do" moments, and these moments can range from minor inconveniences to the group to TPK's or even IRL problems between PC's and/or the DM.
I like the mechanics of spells and metamagics that cause additional effects to lawful, chaotic, good, or evil, but I don't like that it "forces" you to act a certain way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same way I put up with other restrictions. I accept that they are there, that they serve some kind of purpose, and play the game within the boundaries that are created. You start tearing chunks out of the game system, even if you think they serve no real purpose but to limit your own fun, and you end up slowly (or quickly) destroying the carefully crafted product all because you can't see the big picture.
You tell me the assassins during WWII who killed nazis either through poison, stealth kills, disguises or other means are evil?
Well, yes. Assassins would be exactly that if you used the game system to process their alignment. The problem most people have with the alignment system is that they are unwilling (or incapable) of keeping their real world ideology and morality separate from the game. People do all manner of evil things in real life because of the justifications they choose to use in the process of reaching their goals. Using warfare tactics is a bit ... disingenuous towards the alignment system though. Unless you are targeting civilians, killing the enemy is not necessarily an evil act nor is it murder. It is neutral, at best.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restrictions have a chance to make players explore something else than their usual behavior pattern. Appearantly many players start their roleplaying careers with an alignment close to their real life attitudes, and some seem to pretty much stick with it for decades. If a class they desire forces them to play something else, they can grow on it.
As with all things in Pathfinder, I find that the game plays better when I play into its requirements rather than struggle against them. Paladin requires a Lawful Good character? I create a character who has no problems being lawful good.
Though, bards can be any alignment. Chaotic bards is a D&D thing, I think.
Its not like the offerings of any class can't be had by archetyping a different class.
And there's a strange rigidity to people's discussion of alignment wherein they assume only certain alignments get certain types of behavior. There's no reason why a CN barbarian chieftain can't be chaotic and fulfill the traditions of their people. Though I will straight up disagree with the notion of there being 'Good' assassins. When the requirement of the prestige class is 'Murder someone for express purpose to become an assassin' you do not get to be 'But murdering bad people for money is good, right?'
Side note: I played in a game where the DM made a Prestige Class called Political Assassin which removed the evil requirement and presumably the murder requirement so he could have a good aligned assassin NPC assist the party. We mocked this NPC incessantly.
Alignment contains multitudes because it is a very general system meant to represent a complicated thing in the most inoffensive way because these books retail for 40-60 dollars.
So maybe the requirement should be different?
It’s not a”murderer”, it’s an “assassin”. Being an assassin isn’t inherently evil. There are both real life examples and also fictional examples of good assassins
The video game series Assassin’s Creed is all about good assassins, who assassinate bad guys or bad people.
Black widow is a comic book example of a good assassin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only restriction that really feels restrictive to me is paladin. I think it'd be better if it was just "non-evil/non-chaotic", but you still have to follow the paladin's code which will always make you lean toward lawful and good.
And 95% of the time lawful and chaotic are indistinguishable. You can justify most actions into being one or the other:
Lawful: My code dictates I do these actions that are against law and order.
Chaotic: I'm following law and order, because that's what I felt like doing right now.
The only restriction that really feels restrictive to me is paladin. I think it'd be better if it was just "non-evil/non-chaotic", but you still have to follow the paladin's code which will always make you lean toward lawful and good.
And 99% of the time lawful and chaotic are indistinguishable. You can justify most actions into being one or the other.
Really? Most people, including myself, feel it’s the opposite
although I might not 100% agree with it, it makes sense to make paladin lawful good only
What doesn’t make sense is forcing monks and barbarians to be specific alignments. Especially when they aren’t tied to cosmic forces like paladins are. Monks are martial artists and barbarians are just big strong dudes who rage.
You telling me a barbarian chieftain who has a set of codes they command their tribe to follow isn’t lawful?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the monk, lawfulness goes surprisingly deep. Their attacks can count as lawful and they gain DR /chaotic. The flavor of this goes with the monk part of being a monk. Living in a temple with many rituals and taboos. There's a disconnect though in what the monk was and with what the modern audience wants the monk to be, a mystical martial artist.
For Barbarians, it's about the flavor of rage. Someone who constantly gets in the head space of being so enraged they can't think straight. Someone willing to lose control all the time like that doesn't make much sense being lawful. Although really, I've never heard of anyone even wanting to play a lawful barbarian. At the least it doesn't seem to be a popular desire, like non-lawful monks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the law vs chaos issue, it is better represented when you think of the matter more as:
Lawful = the needs of the community outweigh the individual
Chaos = Individual needs are paramount
So many people get caught up in the: "Its the LAW so it must be lawful!" mindset that they never look past the surface level meaning of the word and take it in full context. Laws are meant to collectivize the wishes of a community and set down punishments if they are transgressed. It is ORDER above FREEDOM, not legal vs illegal. While Chaos is simply the opposite, where individuals get to decide for themselves and are not held (internally) to being consistent. The only consistent thing about Chaos is its inconsistency. Hence, why Paladins RESPECT legitimate authority, even though they might disagree on the specifics and why some chaotic characters will go along with the laws and customs of a land, as they might agree with them according to their own personal outlook.
That is why Monks 'tend' to be Lawful. That is why Barbarians 'tend' to be chaotic. Monks tend to require order and mastery of their inner forces in order to do the things they do. Barbarians tap into inner reserves of energy are wild, uncontrolled, and volatile. There are archetypes that change how these things work (or are described with more specific terms that push towards control) and SHOULD loosen the alignment restrictions.
Alignment is not that complicated at all, UNTIL someone attempts to bring the real world into it, or project it into the real world.
For the law vs chaos issue, it is better represented when you think of the matter more as:
Lawful = the needs of the community outweigh the individual
Chaos = Individual needs are paramountSo many people get caught up in the: "Its the LAW so it must be lawful!" mindset that they never look past the surface level meaning of the word and take it in full context. Laws are meant to collectivize the wishes of a community and set down punishments if they are transgressed. It is ORDER above FREEDOM, not legal vs illegal. While Chaos is simply the opposite, where individuals get to decide for themselves and are not held (internally) to being consistent. The only consistent thing about Chaos is its inconsistency. Hence, why Paladins RESPECT legitimate authority, even though they might disagree on the specifics and why some chaotic characters will go along with the laws and customs of a land, as they might agree with them according to their own personal outlook.
That is why Monks 'tend' to be Lawful. That is why Barbarians 'tend' to be chaotic. Monks tend to require order and mastery of their inner forces in order to do the things they do. Barbarians tap into inner reserves of energy are wild, uncontrolled, and volatile. There are archetypes that change how these things work (or are described with more specific terms that push towards control) and SHOULD loosen the alignment restrictions.
Alignment is not that complicated at all, UNTIL someone attempts to bring the real world into it, or project it into the real world.
I’m fairly certain a tyrant or other lawful evil types wouldn’t care about the community. They just use laws to make life better for them or more miserable for others
In broad strokes, good is an action that benefits others without benefitting you also. Evil is an action that hurts others for your own benefit. And then there are all of the shades of grey in between.
I’m fairly certain a tyrant or other lawful evil types wouldn’t care about the community. They just use laws to make life better for them or more miserable for others
...
...
That's why they are evil.Even evil tyrants know that you cannot go too harsh or else you risk starting a rebellion.
Exactly this. They only care about the community in as much as it benefits themselves.
CaptianRelyk, There are exceptions to just above every rule you can imagine, and you can be sure that an EVIL character is going to make use of every single one of them to justify their own personal interpretation or justification of their own actions to better suit themselves. Tyrants will use the traditions and laws of a place to the detriment of others. And they will foment civil unrest between factions within that place in order to distract from their own actions, so that their subjects blame each other.
One thing to keep in mind though. Evil often hides behind the predilections and benevolent nature of the Good people. Evil people have those that they care about. That they love. That they will rip the world asunder in order preserve or get back. Sometimes, they will even sacrifice themselves for those people. Evil does not always mean they are ALWAYS selfish. It just means when it comes down to them and some random (or not so random) person, they will toss that person aside without much a second thought in order to benefit themselves. They truly have no respect for the sanctity of life or the innocence of others unless it also is tied to their own personal matters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
CaptianRelyk what game are you talking about, it does not seem to be Pathfinder. Half the examples you list have no such restrictions in pathfinder. Barbarians do not have to be chaotic they just cannot be lawful. Bards have no alignment restriction at all. Assassins are a prestige class that is rarely used and is specifically about killing for profit, not a character using stealth tactics. If the post is about another game system, I suggest posting it in that forum instead of the Pathfinder forums
There are multiple “Assassin” type classes in Pathfinder that have no alignment restriction. The Slayer is probably the best example of this, but so are the inquisitor and various archetypes for other classes. As to the monk the brawler has no alignment restriction and there are a couple of monk archetypes that alter the alignment restriction.
Nothing says that the leader of a barbarian tribe has to be a barbarian. The skald class is probably one of the best classes for a barbarian leader and they have no alignment restriction. For that matter nothing says that a tribe of barbarians has to have barbarians in it. The barbarian class is for creating a specific type of uncivilized warrior and does not actually fit all “barbarian’ tribes. A barbarian tribe could just as easily be made up of rangers or other classes as barbarians.
Too many people pay attention to the name of the class. The name of the class is not that important and should not be the sole determiner of how to build your character. My thief does not need to be a rogue, nor does my barbarian need to be a barbarian. I could easily use a ranger or a cavalier to build my ‘barbarian’.
Well, there are official rules about casting evil spells turning you evil.
I’ve never actually bothered with those rules. But I wouldn’t be surprised if someone uses official rules.
I like Alignment restrictions. It gives the player and GM another front for discussion that's not directly tied to combat.
I do get a chuckle out of folks that want to turn you Evil for casting a spell with the Evil descriptor like Infernal Healing. It's one of my Governance tests.
On the whole PF1's golorian setting is pretty tame and most folks are pretty naive. It's not a bad thing.
You do, but a lot of people don’t.
It’s restrictive for no reason
It forces a character to act a certain way because if a class without a good reason. It’s not paladin where it’s whole thing is supposed to be tied to alignment
Alignment restricted classes is a product of AD&D when the focus was on wargaming and not on story or rp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly it seems way more war gaming for your class to have nothing to do with the nature of your character. All of the restrictions make sense and the reasoning has been explained in this thread.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restricted classes is a product of AD&D when the focus was on wargaming and not on story or rp.
You seem to be positing that morals impede story, and that disconnecting/ignoring flavor of mechanics improves story.
You will have some that agree with, but it’s not an overwhelming amount that you might think it is.
So there are archetypes of both the paladin and monk that allow them to be other alignments. We play with alignment because alignment has a purpose in 1E. It does force your roleplay into certain things, but the evil monk and paladin weren't meant to be Player characters, in fact the whole Evil alignment group was not allowed for PC's, it was reserved for NPC's, the game was intended for it to be the "good guys" adventuring together to "defeat the great evil". And that's a big driver behind the alignment restrictions.
I’ve butted heads with my DM a few times about how an “evil” character should act… to him, an evil player character should always at some point cause direct harm to other party members with the intent to kill one of them… whereas I prefer to abide by what the alignment system actually says, “self serving at the expense of others”… being evil doesn’t mean you have to go out of your way to deliberately harm others, it simply means that you put your goals above all else and don’t care if your goals harm others… he’ll often contest that “self serving is chaotic neutral”, which yes… self serving is indeed chaotic neutral, but chaotic neutral isn’t at the expense of others… chaotic neutral may of occasion not care how it affects others but will typically consider other options when their actions would harm others.
I’ve been playing a Nuetral Evil Necromancer in a game recently with him as our DM, and luckily so far he hasn’t questioned how I RP her alignment yet… but given our past headbutting over the subject I keep expecting him to either say something about it or randomly decide that I’ve become Chaotic Neutral somehow… so far she hasn’t made any efforts to avoid putting allies in harms way as a result of her actions, infact in one encounter she unleashed an uncontrolled plague ogre zombie within 20ft of an ally from her robe of bones knowing full well that she can’t take control of it until the following round and that it could attack them on its turn. From her perspective she needed a minion and there was an enemy with a direct line to her that needed to be stopped, the ogre zombie going right there was for her personal gain an ally being nearby and put in harms way was of no consequence to her… by the books, that is evil… plus her very frequent use of [evil] spells should keep him from deciding that her “good deeds” have shifted her alignment away from evil…
evil monk and paladin weren't meant to be Player characters, in fact the whole Evil alignment group was not allowed for PC's, it was reserved for NPC's,
I’ve seen this claim pop up a few times on these boards, but where in the books is this ever said? I’ve not once seen it in any of the printed materials. Infact there are even a few APs that assume the party to be evil or atleast leaning towards evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An evil character is willing to kill almost anyone if the personal gain is high enough. And they usually enjoy harming those they don't care about. But it's not like they have to have an addiction to hurting people. As long as the allies represent more of a benefit than a burden to the evil character, she'd be foolish to get rid of them.
There's even such a thing as affably evil, where the character keeps a really nice and wholesome image as often as they can.
|
I do get a chuckle out of folks that want to turn you Evil for casting a spell with the Evil descriptor like Infernal Healing.
Infernal healing was created by the cult of Asmodeus. It is one of those things that are meant to put you on a slippery slope of: "Well, it is a little evil, but it doesn't really harm anyone, so I can use it without consequences." And then you go and do another little evil thing, and another, until you end up doing some big evil thing.
To cast it you either need unholy water or devil blood, i.e. buy stuff from an evil church or bargain with devils (I don't agree that devil blood has a negligible cost and will be found in every spell pouch).
It is not "Your character has cast Infernal evil, he becomes evil.", but it is "Your character has taken a step in not caring, I (the GM) will keep an eye on what he does."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve butted heads with my DM a few times about how an “evil” character should act… to him, an evil player character should always at some point cause direct harm to other party members with the intent to kill one of them… whereas I prefer to abide by what the alignment system actually says, “self serving at the expense of others”… being evil doesn’t mean you have to go out of your way to deliberately harm others, it simply means that you put your goals above all else and don’t care if your goals harm others… he’ll often contest that “self serving is chaotic neutral”, which yes… self serving is indeed chaotic neutral, but chaotic neutral isn’t at the expense of others… chaotic neutral may of occasion not care how it affects others but will typically consider other options when their actions would harm others.
One of the best examples of evil character for me was in a 1st ed. AD&D campaign. He was regularly skimming a nice percentage from the selling of loot, but the other character where: "Okay, when he goes and sells the loot through his contacts he almost certainly keeps 20-30% of the money, but he gets to sell it for 200% of the open market price. We still get 150% of what we would otherwise. Where is the problem?"
He did kill a PC.
The (theoretically) CG wizard that regularly mistargeted his fireballs* harming most of the party, but never himself, that did cast lighting bolt along a corridor after the ranger had said "I will be invisible in that corridor, don't cast lighting bolt in it.", that while the PCs where passengers on a merchant ship, fireballed the ship sails because the captain was trying to flee a pirate ship instead of fighting them.
An intelligent CE is worth thousandths of Chaotic Idiots.
* In the 1st ed. AD&D Fireball had a fixed volume (about 33,000 cubic feet, or 33 cubes of 10x10x10). Used well it could cook a lot of enemies, used badly it could cook a lot of friendlies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment restrictions have been in myth and legends long before there were RPG games. If it was good enough for King Arthur it is good enough for Pathfinder. What is wrong with having a class that requires you to act in a certain way? Some people enjoy playing those types of characters.
For the most part the only classes that have any real alignment restrictions are those serving a deity or power. It makes sense that a deity is only going to grant power to someone that agrees with their moral code. Why would a good god grant spells to an evil person? Other than divine classes the only real alignment restrictions are that barbarians cannot be lawful. Monks who are no longer lawful don’t actually lose any abilities; they just cannot gain new levels as a monk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TxSam88 wrote:
evil monk and paladin weren't meant to be Player characters, in fact the whole Evil alignment group was not allowed for PC's, it was reserved for NPC's,
I’ve seen this claim pop up a few times on these boards, but where in the books is this ever said? I’ve not once seen it in any of the printed materials. Infact there are even a few APs that assume the party to be evil or atleast leaning towards evil.
https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=The%20Nine%20Alignments&Category=Ali gnment
"The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. ____The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains.____ With the GM’s permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them."
Pretty straightforward...
such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict
That's most of it. A mixed party of good and evil is going to do one of two things.
1. Ignore the alignments 99% of the time and just do the adventure. Making the alignments pointless in the first place.-or-
2. Spend all of their time bickering until the game falls apart.
|
|
such characters are often a source of disruption and conflictThat's most of it. A mixed party of good and evil is going to do one of two things.
1. Ignore the alignments 99% of the time and just do the adventure. Making the alignments pointless in the first place.
-or-
2. Spend all of their time bickering until the game falls apart.
There are plenty of examples in fiction of groups of "adventurers" with different alignments. It all depends on how extreme those difference are and how intelligent are the characters played (and the players).
There are plenty of examples in fiction of groups of "adventurers" with different alignments. It all depends on how extreme those difference are and how intelligent are the characters played (and the players).
There are lots of character types that are great in fiction that don't work right in an actual play game. A jerk character in a story can be endearing. You get lots of deep insights into them, and you can focus on them having exactly the right thing at the right time. And the author always has them working to further the goals of the group, because the same person voicing them is voicing every other character in the story.
But an actual play game is a different thing. It's a collaborative effort made of people who can't perfectly communicate with each other. And the people involved aren't perfect, they will get on each other's nerves while arguing for their characters, which will bleed back into their character interactions. Evil and good characters working together just doesn't work well in a game. There's a reason the rules themselves tell you it's a bad idea.
Evil and good characters working together just doesn't work well in a game. There's a reason the rules themselves tell you it's a bad idea.
I guess it usually doesn't work when players simply start playing their idea of evil.
But Paizo published a few good books on playing evil in a functional way, like Agents of Evil, Champions of Corruption and the Hell's Vengeance Player's Guide:
Players are remembered that evil PCs still have allies, a sense of self-preservation and no obligation to act evil all the time.
Evil party members can solve problems in their own, efficient ways, without burdening the precious soul of their comrades - a quick poison neutralizes an annoying bureaucrat, not necessarily killing them.
They can result in unusual enemies which can be interesting to interact with - ever tried to talk an archon out of exacting justice?
They can be a wildcard when enemies are only prepared to fight good adventurers - they don't care about blasphemy, circle against good etc., and might simply take control of enemy undead.
Evil characters can be subject to redemption. They can be (LE) minions by nature, readily accepting orders, even though they will relucantly remember their masters that there are... other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TxSam88 wrote:
evil monk and paladin weren't meant to be Player characters, in fact the whole Evil alignment group was not allowed for PC's, it was reserved for NPC's,
I’ve seen this claim pop up a few times on these boards, but where in the books is this ever said? I’ve not once seen it in any of the printed materials. Infact there are even a few APs that assume the party to be evil or atleast leaning towards evil.https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=The%20Nine%20Alignments&Category=Ali gnment
"The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. ____The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains.____ With the GM’s permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them."
Pretty straightforward...
Recommendations and Reservations are two very different things. The rules Recommend not allowing Evil alignments for PCs, it doesn't Reserve them for NPCs. As SheepishEidolon pointed out, later books outlined ways to include Evil PCs without them being disruptive, and as I stated before some APs were written with a party of Evil PCs in mind.
Recommendations and Reservations are two very different things. The rules Recommend not allowing Evil alignments for PCs, it doesn't Reserve them for NPCs. As SheepishEidolon pointed out, later books outlined ways to include Evil PCs without them being disruptive, and as I stated before some APs were written with a party of Evil PCs in mind.
TxSam88 wrote:
evil monk and paladin weren't meant to be Player characters, in fact the whole Evil alignment group was not allowed for PC's, it was reserved for NPC's,
I’ve seen this claim pop up a few times on these boards, but where in the books is this ever said? I’ve not once seen it in any of the printed materials. Infact there are even a few APs that assume the party to be evil or atleast leaning towards evil.https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=The%20Nine%20Alignments&Category=Ali gnment
"The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. ____The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains.____ With the GM’s permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them."
Pretty straightforward...
It pretty much flat out says that Evil PC's need GM permission. And yes, a couple of the later AP's are specifically written for Evil PC's, but that is the exception, not the rule. Most of the AP's are written with Good PC's in mind, since the objective is some variation of save the world, rescue the princess, defeat the evil god, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Most of the AP's are written with Good PC's in mind, since the objective is some variation of save the world, rescue the princess, defeat the evil god, etc.
Hrm, the goals usually encourage good PCs indeed, but the player's guides show a mixed picture:
Characters of all alignments, religions, and homelands can play a vital role in this campaign
The plot of Iron Gods makes no assumption about PC alignment.
Even evil adventurers (with Game Master permission) might enjoy that same fame and fortune, or see every reason to take revenge against monsters who wrong them personally or destroy their property.
Characters of all alignments, religions, and nations of origin have a place in Brevoy and the River Kingdoms
Even evil characters can, in theory, function in Return of the Runelords, although as is always the case with evil PCs, you’ll want to work with your GM and the other players to ensure that such a character isn’t disruptive to the group’s cohesion.
Characters of all alignments, religions, and homelands can play a vital role in this campaign
Almost everyone, whether good, evil, or purely self-motivated, stands to lose considerable freedom and safety under the rule of Tar-Baphon and legions of the dead, and so alignment isn’t necessarily limited by morality or ethos for Tyrant’s Grasp so long as characters can agree that the Whispering Tyrant and the Whispering Way must be stopped.
That's not counting Hell's Vengeance as well as Skull and Shackles.
For me, chaotic means giving zero expletives about the "laws of other people", unless it is convenient to do otherwise.
That's actually Neutral - not chaotic
Evil means "do whatever it takes to achieve my objectives". Such a person can absolutely be a teamplayer and highly effective adventurer.
yes, but only as long as your goals and theirs align, the second it doesn't, you will turn on them
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it's a difference in actions and alignment. There are actions that are clearly evil and good. Then there are characters that do a lot more of one type of action and very few of the other.
A good character doing evil actions will feel guilty.
An evil character doing good actions will feel stupid.
A neutral character might feel either way.
I ignore them, I don't think mechanical choices should be locked behind roleplaying choices. If an ability needs an explanation for how it works without the character having the proper morals, then I'll deal with that if it ever comes up. If your barbarian has perfect emotional control and can call up fury at will and turn it into power, cool, your dirtbag has some god dumping abilities on them that can only be used for good to tempt him to be a better person, great, your lazy clod can never remember to bring a weapon or put on his armor so he learned to fight without, sounds good.
I'm already not using Golarion, so I'm pulling a bunch of lore out of the classes already. Keeping the alignment restrictions seems pretty arbitrary if I'm already ignoring regional and racial restrictions.
I can see why other people use them, but it's not for me.
Lawful and Chaotic are a different kind of problem, because they can both justify almost anything. Chaotic can do whatever whenever, because it suited their whims. Lawful can ignore anything that doesn't violate their own personal codes, which they often made up themselves anyway. It's all just really shallow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are a lot of people that just want to put evil on their character sheet because they think it is cool. A lot of them play their characters more neutral with some evil tendencies. They are usually the ones arguing that evil can have redeeming values and be kind to people. The baseline alignment is actually neutral. Being either good or evil is actually a lot of work. One evil act does not make a character evil, nor does a single act of good make you good. All sentient life has the potential for both good and evil.
Usually, players that actually want to play evil characters fall into two categories. The first category is usually fairly immature and just wants to try something forbidden. Often these players are fairly young and new to gaming. Most of them usually mature and get bored with it. The second category is people who have serious personal problems. Most of the people in the second category are usually people I don’t want to associate with and often need serous help with their issues.
I can tolerate those who want to put evil on their character sheet because they think it is cool. I don’t like running or playing in an evil campaign so although I have some patience with those who want to explore, I don’t want it in my games. I do not want to associate with disturbed individuals so will not game with someone who prefers playing truly evil characters.