Alignment, the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Zhayne wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I, too, like the alignment system, when it's employed as a guideline and/or baseline and not a straitjacket.
The game uses it as such, though. You must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat ...

Two characters with the same alignment do not in any way have to be absolute copies. There is quite a lot of freedom in alignment, and some dms allow minor and major points of emphasis (e.g. you are major for law and minor for good, you stand almost between two alignments and so on). Such ideas can also help to explain your character out to others. The worldview being that they lean here, they lean there, but they are firmly on this matter, standing for this.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

RP and Mechanics don't need to be mutually exclusive, but at the same time, a character's mechanical package should not include ways to straightjacket their roleplay by holding their hard earned class abilities hostage. instead of balancing a class through behavioral restrictions, which fails to work for a variety of reasons, we should open up the classes to add more variety of concepts.

instead of a paladin class whose only viable concept is either a knight of the round table or a knight of charlemagne's court, neither of which fit in a polytheistic society based on heavy modern influences that are as corrupt as the influences of the Roman empire and not as morally uptight of the middle ages where there was one religion whom governed the morals of the remnants of a whole empire, a world that is nowhere near resembling or own middle ages, no matter how close we try with the tech level, but instead our modern world but with swords being more wide spread and magic in place of technology, a world of greedy economics and religions of various forms, the world that a variety of fantasy RPGs of all media portray, the concept of one as Pure as Roland or Gallahad, would fall apart in a world of such corruption.

Pathfinder, D&D and their descendants, including many retroclones, if you look at the economy, the polytheism, the magic that serves as a stand in for technology, and all the modern ideals that bleed through it, is not Arthurian England nor is it Charlegmane's France, the game is built around an assumption similar to the modern earth, despite differences in technology, a society as corrupt and greedy as the Romans, and the Greeks and Persians before them.

you would have to heavily tweak pathfinder and remove a lot of stuff to get anywhere near Charlegmane or Arthur, in fact, those 2 kings and their knights, as well as the paladin class based upon them, are a poor idea for a game heavily influenced by a very Grey and Corrupt society like our own, when such characters existed in a Romanticized Era of...

On poor used Roland in the Roman empire that you talk about, that can be an excellent story. If the setting is a truly corrupt and base society, then playing a pure shinning LG paladin isn't a negative, you can truly stick out as unique and a great inspiration for a whole kingdom that has fallen on terrible times.

This was how I once felt playing a LG knight in the elves vs. drow second darkness campaign. There was no honour in elf or drow, it was all ethnic warfare and hatred, ambush and poison, long range murder from the shadows and dark magic. My knight brought new ideas in, of honour, of discipline of the possibility for peace and a new way. That way of being truly better than the drow. Civilise those long-lived savages locked in their tribal wars.

That was memorable, and the dm was so thrilled that some of the young elves started listening to this knight. The rp opportunities are so high.

So if it is a corrupt intrigue game, try playing a paladin and see how it goes. Stick to the alignment, make some hard choices and play the most unique character in a whole corrupt country - someone who is actually good and far from corrupt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you look at the examples given in the examples of paladins thread and still come up wit the idea that the PAW(paladin as written) can only be a knight of the round table or knight of Charlemagne's court, then I'm afraid I can't help you, umbrierre.

Scarab Sages

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
i'm asking an alternative, both for the people that use lots of misery porn in their settings, for people that don't want to be cripplied by Jerkwad DMs, and third, for people whom want to play in a setting with modern or Roman influenced morality. to at least have an official by the book option for removing alignment restrictions for the purpose of running games that are darker in nature and a lot less idealistic than a paladin requires. worlds like Eberron and Ravenloft, that are so Grim and Gritty, an innocent and naive Goodie two shoes with a pure heart just wouldn't fit. settings like Cthulu where your innocence will quickly fade with your personal sense of virtue as you try to survive. a lawful good paragon of virtue does not fit in most horror settings, and fits in very few fantasy settings not built around accomodating their requirements.

1. The Paladin DID originally come into being, as I understand it, precisely because Gygax believed (I don't necessarily agree, but it sounds like you might) that Lawful Good was the hardest alignment to play (I have my own hypotheses why this could be, but that's esoteric speculation for another day), so he made a class designed to specially reward players willing to tow that line.

2. Ravenloft is almost paradise for a Paladin: It's all very Manichean, crawling with Evil of the "EEEEEEVIIIL!!!" variety, and EVERYONE risks being forced to hand over their character sheets for Evil deeds - but most others still don't reap the wages of virtue the way the Paladin does.

3. I think you slightly misunderstand the Lovecraft Mythos - true, it's not the best place for Paladins, but depending on what kind of "Lovecraft Mythos" you're really talking about, they could still exist; the problem doesn't really come from "Grim & Gritty/Evil Will Always Triumph Because Good Is Dumb," but rather the fact that it's a pointedly godless, uncaring, and not-at-all human-hearted universe where, as I believe Monte Cook's d20 Call of Cthulhu conversion points out somewhere in its text, the tendency in many setting for people to view divine mages far more favorably than arcane mages is, if anything, reversed - arcane magic is the inspiring story of mortals taking the power of the strange, cold cosmos and providing their own light, however vast the darkness (and at great personal risk, to boot), whereas divine magic is either poignant, powerless superstition, or if it's real, it coming from Cthulhu is kind of the best-case scenario.

4. There are some settings where the Paladin doesn't belong - DARK SUN is one - but they're few in number, and they advertise such issues. The idea of "some classes will never make it in some settings" is anything but unique to Paladins; another class that would do poorly in DARK SUN would be the Pathfinder Summoner (arcane spellcasters usually need to keep a low profile in the setting, and for Summoners, who not are not only likely to attract attention with their high Charisma, but have a BIG CRAZY OBVIOUSLY MAGICAL MONSTER following them everywhere, that would be much harder) and the Bard of most any other setting doesn't exist here - they have their own Bards instead (and yes, almost certainly with blackjack and hookers); given the prevalence, importance, and frequent immediate relevance of the gods and religion in the FORGOTTEN REALMS, I'd imagine that 3.5 Tome of Magic Binders who dared exist in the setting would find the whole "taboo and persecuted" thing they're already prepared to come with would suddenly find the issue taken up to 11; Atlas Games' Nyambe: African Adventures setting severely punishes the wearing of the heavy armor common to so many Eurocentric settings with mechanics reflecting the great heat pervading most of the continent - foreign Fighters, Cavaliers, Clerics, Paladins, and the like are in for a rude welcome (all native PCs, by contrast know sanguar, the martial art of dodging, in addition to whatever lesser armor they may be willing to bear); doubtless the worst offender in this regard of which I've ever heard is, what would happen to the 3.5 Tome of Magic Shadowcaster in RAVENLOFT - Necromancers, Binders, and (I'd speculate) Incarnum-wielders are merely taking a risk using their magic here; as it was described to me, a Shadowcaster, whose magic more or less IS the Plane of Shadow, is, if they find themselves in RAVENLOFT, SCREWED: The whole realm is a twisted and metastasized segment of the Plane of Shadow where, to make a long story short, every Arrow of Dusk and Black Candle a mystery-weilder tried to cast would wind up turning into its own little monster and turning on the caster.

5. I don't object to having a Paladin for every alignment at all - I like that quite a bit, in fact, and I'm certainly not satisfied with the present "LG Paladin, CE Antipaladin, nothing for LE and CG" situation (3.5's Magic of Incarnum included the Soulborn, a warrior class that supplemented fighting skills with meldshaping, incarnum feats, and smiting, whose alignment restrictions were LG, LE, CG, or CE - it was hailed by some as a Paladin for people who were dissatisfied with Paladins).

@DM Under The Bridge: Very well put.


I like alignment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
I, too, like the alignment system, when it's employed as a guideline and/or baseline and not a straitjacket.
The game uses it as such, though. You must be this alignment or you can't take this class, or you lose your powers, or you can't take this feat ...
Two characters with the same alignment do not in any way have to be absolute copies. There is quite a lot of freedom in alignment, and some dms allow minor and major points of emphasis (e.g. you are major for law and minor for good, you stand almost between two alignments and so on). Such ideas can also help to explain your character out to others. The worldview being that they lean here, they lean there, but they are firmly on this matter, standing for this.

I made this diagram for one of my PCs once, using Ultimate Campaign's alignment descriptions. Darker color = stronger fit to that alignment.

I think it's fair to say that I favor an approach in which the attitudes associated with a single alignment are not completely dominant. Play the character first, worry about his alignment second, type of thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is descriptive not proscriptive.


Just part of a character's backstory and not their entire world-view.

I think allegiances are also pretty important.

Scarab Sages

Lincoln Hills wrote:
By that reasoning, the problem is divination - not alignment. I'd love to run a campaign where the party isn't 6 seconds away from ruining the plot of any mystery, 12 seconds away from ruining any chase, and about a minute away from ruining negotiation, moral dilemma, interrogation or 'missing object' plots. (Now that I express it like that, I really do hate divination!... as a GM, anyhow.)

If you're interested in some new rules to make aligned divination more interesting, may I suggest this book.

Obviously I'm kind of into expanding the use of alignment.


Does anyone actually have an actual business case for removing alignment? In other words, can you point to anything to say PF would get 10,000 new paying customers or grow 5% if only they removed alignment. If not, this debate is pointless.

Sovereign Court

Mechagamera wrote:
Does anyone actually have an actual business case for removing alignment? In other words, can you point to anything to say PF would get 10,000 new paying customers or grow 5% if only they removed alignment. If not, this debate is pointless.

Not that I have ever heard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not about better business, it's about a better understanding of role playing. We live in a world of complex moral tradeoffs. There are certainly different types of order and chaos and the selections of these forms of authority is usually pretty subjective and particular. "I hate the government, love religion." "Love science, hate PC social conventions." It's very rare people are anti-order/pro-chaos. They are usually anti-certain types of authority and pro-certain types of freedom. This question, when applied to good and evil, is even more difficult.

Add magic and these questions become more difficult, not more simplistic. The alignment system forces chaotic stupid. People should create characters and not stereotypes, particularly not meaningless, subjective stereotype with game mechanic consequences. Give players the richer experience of having to make complex moral choices mediated by several other concerns. Let them be mystified when they simply don't care about certain consequences, when in real life they might. Let them feel the social consequences of their behavior where it makes sense to do so. Let them embody a new mind, which creates a personality, not a moral code that can be designated via grid.

Sovereign Court

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

It's not about better business, it's about a better understanding of role playing. We live in a world of complex moral tradeoffs. There are certainly different types of order and chaos and the selections of these forms of authority is usually pretty subjective and particular. "I hate the government, love religion." "Love science, hate PC social conventions." It's very rare people are anti-order/pro-chaos. They are usually anti-certain types of authority and pro-certain types of freedom. This question, when applied to good and evil, is even more difficult.

Add magic and these questions become more difficult, not more simplistic. The alignment system forces chaotic stupid. People should create characters and not stereotypes, particularly not meaningless, subjective stereotype with game mechanic consequences. Give players the richer experience of having to make complex moral choices mediated by several other concerns. Let them be mystified when they simply don't care about certain consequences, when in real life they might. Let them feel the social consequences of their behavior where it makes sense to do so. Let them embody a new mind, which creates a personality, not a moral code that can be designated via grid.

You are going to have to do better than this. That is all opinion and has no barring on folks ability to make characters that are not stereotyped or capability to make complex moral decisions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Summary of everything said so far:

This whole Thread wrote:
Wall of Text that won't change anyone's opinions of Alignment or have any effect on the past, present, or future of the Pathfinder system.

Solution:

1. Pick a group of people you can stand to be around.
2. Pick a game system that you, as a group, can live with.
3. Have fun.

Solvem probled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

It's not about better business, it's about a better understanding of role playing. We live in a world of complex moral tradeoffs. There are certainly different types of order and chaos and the selections of these forms of authority is usually pretty subjective and particular. "I hate the government, love religion." "Love science, hate PC social conventions." It's very rare people are anti-order/pro-chaos. They are usually anti-certain types of authority and pro-certain types of freedom. This question, when applied to good and evil, is even more difficult.

Add magic and these questions become more difficult, not more simplistic. The alignment system forces chaotic stupid. People should create characters and not stereotypes, particularly not meaningless, subjective stereotype with game mechanic consequences. Give players the richer experience of having to make complex moral choices mediated by several other concerns. Let them be mystified when they simply don't care about certain consequences, when in real life they might. Let them feel the social consequences of their behavior where it makes sense to do so. Let them embody a new mind, which creates a personality, not a moral code that can be designated via grid.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You see person after person throw out the excuse "This is a fantasy game with magic and stuff" as a reason for not using real world sensibilities. It seems that argument works for everything but alignment where it then switches to "Real life is not black and white therefore alignment is useless".

The alignment system doesn't force anything. The fact that you say a player with a specific alignment suddenly is forced into a little box which they're not allowed out of is like saying you can't roleplay if you rollplay. The alignment is the overall general moral outlook, it's the framework the character spends the majority of his life following.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:


I've said it before and I'll say it again. You see person after person throw out the excuse "This is a fantasy game with magic and stuff" as a reason for not using real world sensibilities. It seems that argument works for everything but alignment where it then switches to "Real life is not black and white therefore alignment is useless".

The alignment system doesn't force anything. The fact that you say a player with a specific alignment suddenly is forced into a little box which they're not allowed out of is like saying you can't roleplay if you rollplay. The alignment is the overall general moral outlook, it's the framework the character spends the majority of his life following.

One, I don't happen to support people who don't think magic and reality should not coexist in the most harmonizing way possible. Alignment isn't useless because real life is not black and white; it's useless because it serves no useful function and distracts from embodying true characters. Human decisions, even if they contain moral components, are usually instantaneous reactions informed by all of our life experiences. Why denigrate that or Pathfinder by necessitating base and specious categories as part of character creationa


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
One, I don't happen to support people who don't think magic and reality should not coexist in the most harmonizing way possible. Alignment isn't useless because real life is not black and white; it's useless because it serves no useful function and distracts from embodying true characters. Human decisions, even if they contain moral components, are usually instantaneous reactions informed by all of our life experiences. Why denigrate that or Pathfinder by necessitating base and specious categories as part of character creationa

Being Lawful Neutral does not in any way stop you from committing Chaotic Evil acts, ever. Your alignment says that in general over the course of your life this is the default behavior you follow. Your alignment is the 'all of our life experiences' part of your argument. It doesn't flip from one setting to another because of one act. It will slide if you consistently act in a manner associate with a different alignment. Even a paladin who willingly commits an evil act doesn't stop being Lawful Good, he simply loses the powers that were granted to him by a Lawful Good patron god until such time as he atones for his actions.


Yes, but I simply don't understand why they are necessary. I get that they do not need to be applied rigidly, but I don't get why they matter. I think there should be alignments for all things. If you love chairs you should be pro chair. If you only like recliners it should also be declared. Alignment to me is an unnecessary label that takes away the realism from the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


true, but my other problem with alignment...

See, this is the heart of all of these threads, and it also furnishes its own solution.

YOU have a problem with this particular game mechanic. YOU. It's YOUR problem. So deal with it YOUR WAY. In YOUR game.

Leave the rest of us to do as we please IN OUR GAMES. Where our own players LIKE HOW WE PLAY AND HAVE FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

Problem solved and no drama necessary.

Now please, people, move on from this mentality. No more repeating the same stupid experiment over and over and expecting a different result.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Yes, but I simply don't understand why they are necessary. I get that they do not need to be applied rigidly, but I don't get why they matter. I think there should be alignments for all things. If you love chairs you should be pro chair. If you only like recliners it should also be declared. Alignment to me is an unnecessary label that takes away the realism from the game.

A point was made in one of the other alignment threads that it's a handy tool for creating NPC populations when building worlds. Instead of having to determine a full life story of every NPC a party will come across, it provides a decent shorthand summation of their overall moral outlook. Same when dealing with the political outlook of a town/city/province/country.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


because the concept of alignment exists within the game, we have to include mechanics focused around it. and because it exists, we have to have reasons to justify it. would Pathfinder 2E or any

Holy wall of Text, Batman! And since you forgot to use Caps, it's nigh unreadable. But it seems to boil down to:

you don't like the alignments system? Fine, play without it, or play a game that doesn't use it.

You think it leads to MORE immature behavior rather than less? Nope. I have played RPGs of all types for a looooong time, and I can tell you that immature players will play that type of PC no matter the rules.

BUT, having alignment does help with the newbs. It does show them what sort of behavior is expected of heroes. This is good. So to a small extent, with new players, it does help to promote a heroic playstyle. Not that that's always necessary, a nice all Evil game is fun once in a while too. But it's fun precisely because it's a change of pace. Even so, I have never spent any game time murdering peasants and stealing their chickens- no, my Evil games had grander things in mind, like Trying to Take over the World, much like Pinky & The Brain.

So, D&D has had Alignment since Day 1. D&D has been the best selling Roleplaying game since Day 1- even tho the baton has passed to PF. Many, many other systems using spellpoints, or level-less skills or no alignments have been published and played, but are now gathering dust in the 30% off shelf down at your FLGS. Hmmm.

Paizo is damn smart. The have taken the most popular RPG ever when WoTC decided to do something NEW & DIFFERENT!!! with it- changed it just a bit and for the better. They'd have to be complete morons to change this extremely successful business model. So, Vancian casting, Levels, and Alignments are all here to stay. That's what sells games. Mind you, having spellpoints or something as a alternate is also a good idea, so they have tentatively gone down that path a little too. This is Good also.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

it won't remove the chaotic stupid behaviors entirely, but it will make them less common because people won't have the alignment chart to influence them into trying a chaotic stupid character, they will instead feel freer to create a personality for their character that they won't have to shoehorn their behaviors into a straightjacket.

every time i interacted with alignment in my 15ish years of D&D, not counting 17 years of freeform i did at the sameish time, i have discovered that if you include alignment as a mechanic or even a detail on a character sheet, or the alignment chart as a reference, that players are bound to misinterpret that alignment and shoehorn themselves to fit their mispercieved vision of that alignment as best they can

which is why i would rather players create their own personality from scratch than try to use 2 words as a base, so you don't have something encouraging you to play chaotic stupid and other disruptive alignments.

I have never had this problem. If anything my players chose the personality first, and then tried to find the one that fit the best.

With that being said my players that were more likely to make bad decisions or be violent tended to be that way no matter what RPG we played.
In a high level D&D game they killed commoners for no reason. The same player(s), who were supposed to be heroes in a mutants and mastermind game use an AoE power and killed innocent bystanders when they could have easily taken out some bank robbers(with no super powers of their own) just because it was convenient.


I dont have a problem with the idea of alignment. I just wish the system was different. Maybe having virtues might work, and your virtues could then determine how certain spells interacted with you. That way two people could have the same virtue(s), but not be expected to be act a certain way. In addition it would be noted that you are not expected to always follow your virtue. Your actions dictate the virtue, not the other way around.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

It's not about better business, it's about a better understanding of role playing. We live in a world of complex moral tradeoffs. There are certainly different types of order and chaos and the selections of these forms of authority is usually pretty subjective and particular. "I hate the government, love religion." "Love science, hate PC social conventions." It's very rare people are anti-order/pro-chaos. They are usually anti-certain types of authority and pro-certain types of freedom. This question, when applied to good and evil, is even more difficult.

Add magic and these questions become more difficult, not more simplistic. The alignment system forces chaotic stupid. People should create characters and not stereotypes, particularly not meaningless, subjective stereotype with game mechanic consequences. Give players the richer experience of having to make complex moral choices mediated by several other concerns. Let them be mystified when they simply don't care about certain consequences, when in real life they might. Let them feel the social consequences of their behavior where it makes sense to do so. Let them embody a new mind, which creates a personality, not a moral code that can be designated via grid.

Provincial people (speaking as a provincial) can be and often are anti-order. Especially when that order is a large external todger coming once again to try and give them grief and use them, or in our times, try to advise them what is the correct action for their affairs. Cue any mountain clan or rebel movement against the state. Order is enforced domination, not everyone goes along with that.

Shadow Lodge

The problem with the alignment system is detect evil and other spells that have effects based upon alignment. If those didn't exist, I'd have no problem with alignments. As long as such spells exist, I vehemently oppose the idea of alignment.
Its not the labeling that's the issue, it's the claim that the label has some tangible reality. As long as the rules support "good" people murdering other people because they detect as "evil," I will hate the system.

There may be others out there, but of all the RPGs that I've played, d&d is the only one that tries to tie game mechanics on to morality.


You don't believe in the reality of evil?

:/ ?

Or evil in a game with diabolically (and worse, diabolic can be negotiated with) evil beings?

You don't think a spell should be able to detect beings of utter darkness, or identify the evil deep in the souls of the most depraved hiding like wolves amongst the sheep?

When a spell detects such darkness and allegiance to evil forces and its twisted ideals, you don't think the players should be killing that evil creature?

I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

You don't believe in the reality of evil?

:/ ?

Or evil in a game with diabolically (and worse, diabolic can be negotiated with) evil beings?

You don't think a spell should be able to detect beings of utter darkness, or identify the evil deep in the souls of the most depraved hiding like wolves amongst the sheep?

When a spell detects such darkness and allegiance to evil forces and its twisted ideals, you don't think the players should be killing that evil creature?

I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

it's not that players shouldn't be killing truly vile foes, it is that a simple spell should not be sufficient an excuse for the players to kill a foe or to spoil a plot, kinda hard to make a nonmagical evil mastermind politician type villain when a simple easily spammable spell can spoil the villain for you in an instant

i want the subtle masterminds to be less spoilable, and for such things as laws and the like, to discourage using detect evil as a means to get away with murder.

alignment restrictions merely serve as an excuse to hold a character's powers as a carrot that can be stripped away by an abusive DM, and well, i thought my original problem was with alignment itself, and then i realized, it wasn't alignment that was my problem, but making alignment a quantifiyable game mechanic that influences other game mechanics, instead of making alignment a purely roleplaying thing. i realized, alignment isn't the problem after all, the real problem is alignment bleeds itself over into influencing and controlling game mechanics, when a character's mechanical choices should never force them to meet a specific behavioral pattern to benefit from them, but instead, a characters alignment should be based upon a combination of their personality, motives, intent and actions, while at the same time, alignments should have no interaction whatsoever with game mechanics and divination spells should generally be nonexistent, because just like alignment, divination spells encourage a certain set of metagaming.

when a player gives a character a personality. it is usually a personality intended to shoehorn them into a specific alignment so that they can keep their primary class features. or if they have no such restriction, they will pick either the least interactive or least influencing alignment so they needn't worry as much about smite mechanics. i'm not saying alignment shouldn't be a tool for players whom need it, but alignment shouldn't influence game mechanics or interact with it, but personality should interact with overall alignment

casting a simple low level spell shouldn't tell you "this guy is evil." in fact, i don't want to see smites that only affect "evil foes" and would rather see, alignment be pure flavor be completely divorced from game mechanics, and divinations lose thier power greatly. i have seen the problem. not a problem with alignment itself, but a problem with immature players, jerkwad DMs, the intense level of how alignment interacts with game mechanics and the fact there are a bunch of plot ruining divination spells out there.

i'd rather players decide for themselves, an opinion that percieves an individual as evil, no matter how misguided their opinion may be, rather than treat a person as evil due to what a low level spell told them.


It never occurred to me before, but there must be some GMs running prescriptive alignment and some running descriptive alignment. The original alignment concept appears to have been for prescriptive purposes.
Player: "Hey, let's kill them and take all their stuff."
GM: "You can't do that, it would derail the plot... I mean, violate your alignment."
As opposed to saying: "Well, this character has been acting in a fairly evil manner lately. I don't think they should be immune to the effects of Holy Smite any more."

Liberty's Edge

gnoams wrote:

The problem with the alignment system is detect evil and other spells that have effects based upon alignment. If those didn't exist, I'd have no problem with alignments. As long as such spells exist, I vehemently oppose the idea of alignment.

Its not the labeling that's the issue, it's the claim that the label has some tangible reality. As long as the rules support "good" people murdering other people because they detect as "evil," I will hate the system.

The rules do not support that. The amount of Evil a normal human detects as is different enough from something like a fiend or undead that killing them for detecting of Evil is still murder and wrong, even going by the standard Alignment rules.

gnoams wrote:
There may be others out there, but of all the RPGs that I've played, d&d is the only one that tries to tie game mechanics on to morality.

I've seen quite a few. The entirety of the New World of Darkness comes to mind...


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is fine as a simple descriptor of what your character is probably going to act like in certain moral dilemmas.

"My CG character is not gonna be on board with slavery, bro."

"My LE character has absolutely no issue with torturing this guy for information."

"My LG character has chosen NOT to have a stick up his ass but nevertheless I'ma have to ask you to not eat babies in front of him."

The whole thing breaks down when alignment starts infringing on mechanics, however.

Alignment descriptor spells making you more Aligned is one of the dumbest things put on paper by anyone, ever. Casting Fireball does not make you more [Fire], casting Holy Smite should not magically make you more [Good].

Detect Alignment spells are the nail in the coffin for any attempt to say "Yeah alignment is descriptive not restrictive", because it quite obviously is restrictive at that point. You've been put in a box at taht point.

"Ping...ping...pingpingping WE HAVE AN EVIL GUY!" pretty much puts the kibosh on "I'm a well intentioned extremist" because the only people who could be Evil in a world where you are quantifiably more [Evil] are the insane nutjobs who do it For Teh Evulz.

No sane person ever believes they're evil. So once someone goes "Ding! Yep you're evil!" they can rest assured that the universe itself is telling them they're wrong.

Alignment restrictions are just arbitrary and unnecessary. "Well, my Monk is Neutral Good so he forgot how to do his katas I guess", "My Barbarian turned Lawful and now his medula oblongata is broke", "My Paladin is still a good guy and trying to do the will of the gods but he turned CG and lost his powers. They were like 'Nah man. He's the world's only hope but let's f#!& with him a bit'."

They're silly. They only exist as an artifact from previous editions.

Keep alignment. Get rid of mechanical interference from it.

The only ones I find acceptable as being almost undeniably Aligned are Outsiders. I mean, being literally made of congealed masses of evil souls kinda limits your options for alignment, you know?

But that's about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

You don't believe in the reality of evil?

:/ ?

Or evil in a game with diabolically (and worse, diabolic can be negotiated with) evil beings?

You don't think a spell should be able to detect beings of utter darkness, or identify the evil deep in the souls of the most depraved hiding like wolves amongst the sheep?

When a spell detects such darkness and allegiance to evil forces and its twisted ideals, you don't think the players should be killing that evil creature?

I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

it's not that players shouldn't be killing truly vile foes, it is that a simple spell should not be sufficient an excuse for the players to kill a foe or to spoil a plot, kinda hard to make a nonmagical evil mastermind politician type villain when a simple easily spammable spell can spoil the villain for you in an instant

i want the subtle masterminds to be less spoilable, and for such things as laws and the like, to discourage using detect evil as a means to get away with murder.

alignment restrictions merely serve as an excuse to hold a character's powers as a carrot that can be stripped away by an abusive DM, and well, i thought my original problem was with alignment itself, and then i realized, it wasn't alignment that was my problem, but making alignment a quantifiyable game mechanic that influences other game mechanics, instead of making alignment a purely roleplaying thing. i realized, alignment isn't the problem after all, the real problem is alignment bleeds itself over into influencing and controlling game mechanics, when a character's mechanical choices should never force them to meet a specific behavioral pattern to benefit from them, but instead, a characters alignment should be based upon a combination of their personality, motives, intent and actions, while at the same time, alignments should have no interaction whatsoever with game mechanics and divination spells should generally be nonexistent, because just like...

Maybe you want to remove detect evil, and maybe you want your games to be more gray and for violence to not be the go to solution to solve the problems of evil-doers. Maybe you want evil to be more protected, more secure, the fat cats curled upside the gates of the state and preying upon the fools that don't even realise what they are.

All very nice and conspiratorial, and I can somewhat agree, but I have no problem with the spell, or players using it to work out who needs a good killing in short order. You see I love adventure and excitement and I also play intrigue games with detect evil, and while the players may end up knowing who is irredeemably evil, that isn't all there is to it.

Evil can be protected, killing evil in the confines of a city can be a death sentence and the great thing about detect evil is that not everyone is going to agree with the paladin or see the world as he/she does. That can lead to some great drama. Especially if players know who is evil, but circumstances cause them to work around this evil-doer for now, or let them live because of something of greater importance.

Detect evil doesn't damage roleplaying in and of itself. It can be a useful tool and I don't want to take it away.

The last point is a bit pithy but also relevant. If your players are checking for evil and killing npcs, maybe they are really calling for a nice simple bash evil and have fun type of game. You have give them what they want or they will certainly act up. Good luck.


Rynjin wrote:
"My LG character has chosen NOT to have a stick up his ass but nevertheless I'ma have to ask you to not eat babies in front of him."

Great line.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some Notes:

Undetectable alignment is a thing. Hell, it's a 1st level spell for Bards (and Paladins, and a 2nd level spell for several other people), making Wands of it cheap as hell. Misdirection is a little higher...and can make LG people show up as strongly Evil. If my players started killing people for being Evil, I'd have a Demon pull that on them, tell them, laugh, and run away. They'd certainly get revenge...but I doubt they'd be so cavalier again. All this makes villains hiding what they are pretty easy, especially since Rings of Mind Shielding do this, too.

And in roleplaying terms...who says what's Evil? We the players know it's the universe itself and that it's correct, but a character could easily claim that it's the Gods of 'Good', and that they're biased hypocrites. Or that the whole system is b$~*!$#* in some sort of cosmic accounting war between the Gods, or even that they're a Nietzschean Ubremensch to whom morality doesn't apply (if they ever become Mythic this can even be true) and find the whole concept of alignment silly, holding to their own code that has little to do with Alignment and being amused when people check it "Oh, am I Evil again? It's been a while..."

All of these and more are easily possible.

Well intentioned extremism is also still absolutely possible. Look at the Operative from Serenity he has a whole spiel about how he knows he's a monster but does what he does for the greater good. For a world without sin...which will have no place for him. Looked at from a certain warped perspective, knowing that you damn yourself by an act you believe is necessary makes you a martyr of sorts...and there's never been a shortage of people willing to be those. "I am Evil so others don't have to be." is a perfectly possible perspective held by some people in real life...and almost certainly more in a world where you can check that.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like alignments, they work fine in my games. Our paladins have always been reasonable, abiding by their codes without expecting those around them to, even fighting alongside evil characters in order to fight a greater evil and slowly work towards the evil character's redemption.

I've had chaotic neutral PCs in our groups, who occasionally lone wolf, doing so in order to protect the rest of the party because CN doesn't say: "No loyalty". I've had LE characters, assassins, inquisitors and the like, magnificent bastards who embody "cruel and unusual", all in an effort to advance the story.

I'll tell you what's wrong with alignments. Disruptive players and frustrated GMs who want a scapegoat for their bad behaviour or that of their players.

That's why character creation needs to be a cooperative process, where the GM gets veto and players create characters who want and need to work together.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
The last point is a bit pithy but also relevant. If your players are checking for evil and killing npcs, maybe they are really calling for a nice simple bash evil and have fun type of game. You have give them what they want or they will certainly act up. Good luck.

Pretty much this in a nutshell. Bob detected as evil -- so what? That doesn't give you the right to run up and kill them, be you a paladin or policeman or cleric or whatever. If that is the main issue you are running into, it isn't the alignment system that is a problem.

A shades of grey world won't change player behavior. Removing alignment doesn't make people role play in a less disruptive way if that is their thing. Much like everything in the rules, alignment is part of the tool box, and like everything there, if it doesn't work for your game you can remove it. But I don't see them removing it from the game as a whole, anymore than removing guns, ninjas, puppies, or whatever it is that bugs certain groups would solve anything.

Make the game your own by customizing.

Scarab Sages

I'll just chime in and say that I actually like the alignment system, but I do think that the idea of alignment-based classes is a little bit screwy though. I'd prefer that, rather than have alignment-restricted classes, we had archetypes or bonuses for existing classes which rewarded them above and beyond normal classes for adhering to specific alignments. Make the Paladin a universal archetype that rewards the player with specific benefits for adhering to the Paladin Code. Same goes for some of the other Alignment-restricted guys, and I think we'd hear a little less QQ about it.

Scarab Sages

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Provincial people (speaking as a provincial) can be and often are anti-order. Especially when that order is a large external todger coming once again to try and give them grief and use them, or in our times, try to advise them what is the correct action for their affairs. Cue any mountain clan or rebel movement against the state. Order is enforced domination, not everyone goes along with that.

*claxons sound* WRONG! WRONG! People like that will say that about themselves, but when you actually look closely at those societies, none are more Lawful. These are the people who say "howdy-do, new neighbor, what's it like where you come from?" when you roll into town, but if you stick around and fail to assimilate, they reveal their true colors...and they're not pretty. What's more, some of the most malignant cultural empires in the world come from those roots (think of the Israelites, AKA "the Phoenicians' embarrassing xenophobic mountain-man cousins," or the Borderers/Jacksonians). This is an old chestnut you're invoking, maintained by advertisers, politicians, and naive urbanites who fall for the siren song of Norman Rockwell - don't be fooled.

"To say the least, a town life makes one more tolerant and liberal in one's judgement of others." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow


knightnday wrote:

Removing alignment, as MechE_ mentions, won't change player behaviour, but will just remove the words from the sheet. Someone who wants to murder peasants and kick puppies will still do it. Someone who wants to be utterly chaotic will. The alignment code gives you an idea of a way to interact with others, it doesn't cause or prevent anything a player wants to do. In some cases, it gives the GM a measuring stick -- one they will still need if there are God-given powers and codes and the like.

Removing alignments will do precisely nothing to control players anymore than suggesting a FAQ or internet Q&A will control someone who wants to find loopholes in the rules.

Communication and sometimes a good strong "No" can go a long way to getting everyone on the same page.

Hell a LG guy can murder peasants, just declare them heretics and get burning, as long as the god they are heretics against is LG you are golden or does that only work for orks? (Which is why I dislike the Alignment system)


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Some Notes:

Undetectable alignment is a thing. Hell, it's a 1st level spell for Bards (and Paladins, and a 2nd level spell for several other people), making Wands of it cheap as hell. Misdirection is a little higher...and can make LG people show up as strongly Evil. If my players started killing people for being Evil, I'd have a Demon pull that on them, tell them, laugh, and run away. They'd certainly get revenge...but I doubt they'd be so cavalier again. All this makes villains hiding what they are pretty easy, especially since Rings of Mind Shielding do this, too.

And in roleplaying terms...who says what's Evil? We the players know it's the universe itself and that it's correct, but a character could easily claim that it's the Gods of 'Good', and that they're biased hypocrites. Or that the whole system is b%&++#@+ in some sort of cosmic accounting war between the Gods, or even that they're a Nietzschean Ubremensch to whom morality doesn't apply (if they ever become Mythic this can even be true) and find the whole concept of alignment silly, holding to their own code that has little to do with Alignment and being amused when people check it "Oh, am I Evil again? It's been a while..."

All of these and more are easily possible.

Well intentioned extremism is also still absolutely possible. Look at the Operative from Serenity he has a whole spiel about how he knows he's a monster but does what he does for the greater good. For a world without sin...which will have no place for him. Looked at from a certain warped perspective, knowing that you damn yourself by an act you believe is necessary makes you a martyr of sorts...and there's never been a shortage of people willing to be those. "I am Evil so others don't have to be." is a perfectly possible perspective held by some people in real life...and almost certainly more in a world where you can check that.

Very good ideas and all entirely possible within the system.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Provincial people (speaking as a provincial) can be and often are anti-order. Especially when that order is a large external todger coming once again to try and give them grief and use them, or in our times, try to advise them what is the correct action for their affairs. Cue any mountain clan or rebel movement against the state. Order is enforced domination, not everyone goes along with that.

*claxons sound* WRONG! WRONG! People like that will say that about themselves, but when you actually look closely at those societies, none are more Lawful. These are the people who say "howdy-do, new neighbor, what's it like where you come from?" when you roll into town, but if you stick around and fail to assimilate, they reveal their true colors...and they're not pretty. What's more, some of the most malignant cultural empires in the world come from those roots (think of the Israelites, AKA "the Phoenicians' embarrassing xenophobic mountain-man cousins," or the Borderers/Jacksonians). This is an old chestnut you're invoking, maintained by advertisers, politicians, and naive urbanites who fall for the siren song of Norman Rockwell - don't be fooled.

"To say the least, a town life makes one more tolerant and liberal in one's judgement of others." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Independents and isolationists rejecting the central sphere of power are not majorly into "order". Personal codes, older notions of etiquette doesn't mean they are on the side of the political order or the major forces of law. When they take the law into their own hands and solve their own problems without being dependent upon the lawful powers they reveal they are far closer to CG than LN. I did not claim tolerant or liberal, I am talking about the relationship to power and state.

The claim that there is and always will be an attack upon those that fail to assimilate is very American-centric. When travelling you can always pick out the Americans, even if they don't speak, because while they say they are all individuals, there is tremendous uniformity and similarity. Elsewhere, this differs. The English have a long history of respecting weirdness and wackiness, and the pressures of conformity are not equal on all borders and frontiers. Where your beliefs and business are considered your business, there is far less conformity (some old folks are claiming this is dying out though. Political discussions and people trying to pressure you to change were extremely rare in the old days, so the old fellas say, but now there are causes and people bothering you aplenty) but there will still be class and ethnic pressures, but this is still getting away from the provincials suspicion of the state, the centre and the capital cities (and all that they represent). America, and its powerful pressures to bully those that are different, and consistence in creating conformity is not the world.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

*claxons sound* WRONG! WRONG! People like that will say that about themselves, but when you actually look closely at those societies, none are more Lawful. These are the people who say "howdy-do, new neighbor, what's it like where you come from?" when you roll into town, but if you stick around and fail to assimilate, they reveal their true colors...and they're not pretty. What's more, some of the most malignant cultural empires in the world come from those roots (think of the Israelites, AKA "the Phoenicians' embarrassing xenophobic mountain-man cousins," or the Borderers/Jacksonians). This is an old chestnut you're invoking, maintained by advertisers, politicians, and naive urbanites who fall for the siren song of Norman Rockwell - don't be fooled.

"To say the least, a town life makes one more tolerant and liberal in one's judgement of others." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Independents and isolationists rejecting the central sphere of power are not majorly into "order". Personal codes, older notions of etiquette doesn't mean they are on the side of the political order or the major forces of law. When they take the law into their own hands and solve their own problems without being dependent upon the lawful powers they reveal they are far closer to CG than LN. I did not claim tolerant or liberal, I am talking about the relationship to power and state.

The claim that there is and always will be an attack upon those that fail to assimilate is very American-centric. When travelling you can always pick out the Americans, even if they don't speak, because while they say they are all individuals, there is tremendous uniformity and similarity. Elsewhere, this differs. The English have a long history of respecting weirdness and wackiness, and the pressures of conformity are not equal on all borders and frontiers. Where your beliefs and business are considered your business, there is far less conformity (some old folks are claiming this is dying out though. Political discussions and people trying to pressure you to change were extremely rare in the old days, so the old fellas say, but now there are causes and people bothering you aplenty) but there will still be class and ethnic pressures, but this is still getting away from the provincials suspicion of the state, the centre and the capital cities (and all that they represent). America, and its powerful pressures to bully those that are different, and consistence in creating conformity is not the world.

When politics gets interjected into an apolitical discussion, all sorts of hasty generalizations start getting thrown around. Typically some sort of American "bashing" is involved. I'm just going to say that you're both wrong and leave it at that.

Liberty's Edge

While alignments should remain in the game they need to be defined clearly. In point form what a character can or cannot do. Not a vague paragraph or general statements. If a player wants to take prisoners the alignment description should say if they. Not leave it up to the DM nor the player. One of my favorite systems that deals well with the topic is the Palladium alignment system. The core rules aside I never had any trouble keeping lawful stupid or out of control Chaotic Neutral characters.

Players who come from D&D and who like to play fast and loose or just plain ignore alignment tend find they can't do the same with Palladium alignments. I know some will scream bloody murder as players should not be tied to a alignment. Yet without a properly defined code of conduct tends to allow for abuse on the part of some players. Nor do I want to waste too much time as a DM figuring out if player XYZ can break his word or not.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
it's not that players shouldn't be killing truly vile foes, it is that a simple spell should not be sufficient an excuse for the players to kill a foe or to spoil a plot

It isn't.

Quote:
kinda hard to make a nonmagical evil mastermind politician type villain when a simple easily spammable spell can spoil the villain for you in an instant

They know for a fact he's Evil. So what? What can they do about it? Nothing. That's the beauty of politics.

Quote:
i want the subtle masterminds to be less spoilable

They're not really masterminds if a low level spell can screw them over in any way. Not that it should even matter.

Quote:
and for such things as laws and the like, to discourage using detect evil as a means to get away with murder.

Then DON'T let them use it as a means to get away with murder. Because it in no way is a justification to kill someone.

Sovereign Court

memorax wrote:

While alignments should remain in the game they need to be defined clearly. In point form what a character can or cannot do. Not a vague paragraph or general statements. If a player wants to take prisoners the alignment description should say if they. Not leave it up to the DM nor the player. One of my favorite systems that deals well with the topic is the Palladium alignment system. The core rules aside I never had any trouble keeping lawful stupid or out of control Chaotic Neutral characters.

Players who come from D&D and who like to play fast and loose or just plain ignore alignment tend find they can't do the same with Palladium alignments. I know some will scream bloody murder as players should not be tied to a alignment. Yet without a properly defined code of conduct tends to allow for abuse on the part of some players. Nor do I want to waste too much time as a DM figuring out if player XYZ can break his word or not.

There is no way to account for the infintie number of decisions that are going to come up during gaming. The current descriptions are fine I dont want to check charts constantly while playing. I trust my fellow players and myself to act as arbitors based on what is currently in the rule book. You are better off ignoring alignment if your game cant function without specific answers provided by the rulebook.


The alignment system has multiple uses all of them make for a better game:

(1) Motivation - helps the player tell the story of the PC. What motivates them? How would they act given a particular situation? If you want to bounce around and do whatever you want their are alignments for that type of persona.

(2) Guidelines - helps make sense of certain organizations, activities, and classes. Of course a Hell Knight's must be lawful that's what they are all about. You wouldn't be a Hell Knight for very long if you were chaotic. They are supported by actual powers and abilities directly from the Hells.

(3) Understanding the world - their are beings in the world that are physical manifestations of good/evil. How these beings act should be motivated by this fact. Super happy and friendly Balor? Outside of powerful magic not bloody likely.

People want to rationalize the need to power game. The "I want to dip x levels in Y" crowd and then go back to being a person that is directly opposite of what it takes to be, or learn to be, Y.

I mean to be a monk you just wait for a level and starting adding monk abilities right? There is no need to have ever set foot in a monastery. There is no need to be the type of person that would train for month/years in an extremely regimented way to achieve amazing feats of mind and body?


Geflin Graysoul wrote:

People want to rationalize the need to power game. The "I want to dip x levels in Y" crowd and then go back to being a person that is directly opposite of what it takes to be, or learn to be, Y.

I mean to be a monk you just wait for a level and starting adding monk abilities right? There is no need to have ever set foot in a monastery. There is no need to be the type of person that would train for month/years in an extremely regimented way to achieve amazing feats of mind and body?

That's why certain dip attempts should be called in question. A player whose character's life has given no indication of avocation to a certain class should be asked something to the effect of, "And when did you acquire the education, discipline, patronage and faith to take a level in paladin, Mr. 'I Don't Have to Listen to Authority, I'm a Bad-Ass'?"

Any time a dip is taken simply to augment a character's power via optimization, but makes no sense in context of either narrative or character development, it should be vetoed over the protesting bleats, or at least made reasonable by requiring a hoop jump or two.


Geflin Graysoul wrote:
I mean to be a monk you just wait for a level and starting adding monk abilities right? There is no need to have ever set foot in a monastery. There is no need to be the type of person that would train for month/years in an extremely regimented way to achieve amazing feats of mind and body?

What about a Monk who inherited her training? She grew up in a monastery and was raised and trained to be a Monk as her parents were, but chafed hard against the quiet and disciplined regimen of the monastery. Maybe she learns about the stylish movements of the swashbucklers and duelists and wants to apply her unarmed skills in fights to provide entertainment and fame. And thus, she leaves the monastery and begins adventuring, going to hone her skills against opponents that she would have never dreamed of facing if she had stayed within her stuffy temple...

But by Pathfinder rules, her progression as a Monk stops cold at level 1 because this character is clearly not Lawful. And that's lame.

The alignment system restricts more character development than it provides. I can see its use as a shorthand for the morality of minor NPC's but PC's should abandon it entirely.


Arachnofiend wrote:

What about a Monk who inherited her training? She grew up in a monastery and was raised and trained to be a Monk as her parents were, but chafed hard against the quiet and disciplined regimen of the monastery. Maybe she learns about the stylish movements of the swashbucklers and duelists and wants to apply her unarmed skills in fights to provide entertainment and fame. And thus, she leaves the monastery and begins adventuring, going to hone her skills against opponents that she would have never dreamed of facing if she had stayed within her stuffy temple...

But by Pathfinder rules, her progression as a Monk stops cold at level 1 because this character is clearly not Lawful. And that's lame.

Is it?

Alternately, it demonstrates that her lack of discipline leaves her all style and no substance (in the way it counts for a monk)—a duelist or swashbuckler, as you said. She can ape the outward forms and katas, but not gain any or much of the chi/supernatural power behind them, because she simply doesn't possess the discipline to acquire and maintain it.

First or 2nd level and no more arguably represents that well.

As a matter of fact, one could argue that this example shows the facility and importance of alignment.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So....what, alignment is Rovagug?


Jaelithe wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

What about a Monk who inherited her training? She grew up in a monastery and was raised and trained to be a Monk as her parents were, but chafed hard against the quiet and disciplined regimen of the monastery. Maybe she learns about the stylish movements of the swashbucklers and duelists and wants to apply her unarmed skills in fights to provide entertainment and fame. And thus, she leaves the monastery and begins adventuring, going to hone her skills against opponents that she would have never dreamed of facing if she had stayed within her stuffy temple...

But by Pathfinder rules, her progression as a Monk stops cold at level 1 because this character is clearly not Lawful. And that's lame.

Is it?

Alternately, it demonstrates that her lack of discipline leaves her all style and no substance (in the way it counts for a monk)—a duelist or swashbuckler, as you said. She can ape the outward forms and katas, but not gain any or much of the chi/supernatural power behind them, because she simply doesn't possess the discipline to acquire and maintain it.

First or 2nd level and no more arguably represents that well.

As a matter of fact, one could argue that this example shows the facility and importance of alignment.

Okay, so we're back to punishing players mechanically for wanting to do something different with their characters fluff wise.

How could this possibly be considered a good thing?

51 to 100 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment, the War Stirring Beast that needs to be sealed. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.