Why ban alignments?

[ImperatorV]

If you want that kind of theme, play a gothic dark fantasy game, not this heroic fantasy game.

That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.

[Roxxy]

Point taken. I will say, even if I disagree with Roxxy, she is far more articulate than that other one, and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with them. I simply happen to have a worldview that is diametrically opposed to hers, which I can live with.

Right. There is nothing wrong with not liking the way each other does things. I certainly don't expect everybody else to share my strict views on mercenaries or to not want to play Neutral characters. It's not for me to tell you not to do things at your table. I started out trying to explain why I personally ban some alignments, and from there I ended up getting defensive.

That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.

I am here for the escapism. I don't like the real world, so I don't want to replicate it.

[TandemChelipeds]

That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.

It should be noted, however, that both Roxxy and draken50 have actually brought up that exact point. At this point, it isn't them imposing their values on the rest of us, it's them having different tastes from the rest of us and everyone else going "Come on, really?"

It doesn't really improve anything, and it's kinda unwarranted. I think it's basically a kneejerk reaction at knowing that we'll never be able to play that world-changing magnificent bastard chessmaster magus with a bone to pick with the gods in any of their games. Which really isn't a serious issue, when we consider the probability of ending up in either of their games to begin with. It's a non-sequitur, it's "But I wanna play Lelouch!"

[ImperatorV]

I am here for the escapism. I don't like the real world, so I don't want to replicate it.

Ah. Well, that explains your thought process. I think we reached our conclusion here, no need to continue the argument. Good debate everybody.

[TandemChelipeds]

Ah. Well, that explains your thought process. I think we reached our conclusion here, no need to continue the argument. Good debate everybody.

Wait a sec. Why does your quote name me as the poster?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Banning alignments also depends on the players involved. You might trust them to play a layered and entertaining character, others you distrust as anyone with an extreme alignment.

[ImperatorV]

Wait a sec. Why does your quote name me as the poster?

Huh. Weird. I'll see if I can fix that.

[TandemChelipeds]

Banning alignments also depends on the players involved. You might trust them to play a layered and entertaining character, others you distrust as anyone with an extreme alignment.

Yeah, there's a guy I used to play with in New Brunswick who invariably played his characters as Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil as possible. Once the party was sneaking around a dark dungeon, rolled Perception, saw a pair of eyes in the shadows, and he pulled out the mandolin and started playing. It was a bugbear at level 1 and the (inexperienced)party almost got massacred. Then in another game he kept a goblin alive, tortured it, and stabbed its eye out for the lulz. But this was the same guy who was a self-professed sociopath, so he was pretty Chaotic Stupid Evil irl.

[ImperatorV]

Alright should be fixed now. I think the auto-reply thing brought the quote Roxxy was quoting from you in, and when I took that part out I must have deleted the start quote from her and left the start quote from you.

[TandemChelipeds]

Alright should be fixed now. I think the auto-reply thing brought the quote Roxxy was quoting from you in, and when I took that part out I must have deleted the start quote from her and left the start quote from you.

Yeah, it looks fine.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Yeah, there's a guy I used to play with in New Brunswick who invariably played his characters as Chaotic Stupid and Stupid Evil as possible. Once the party was sneaking around a dark dungeon, rolled Perception, saw a pair of eyes in the shadows, and he pulled out the mandolin and started playing. It was a bugbear at level 1 and the (inexperienced)party almost got massacred. Then in another game he kept a goblin alive, tortured it, and stabbed its eye out for the lulz. But this was the same guy who was a self-professed sociopath, so he was pretty Chaotic Stupid Evil irl.

I'm drawing from experience dealing with someone whose experience spans many decades and systems. We pretty much don't trust him ever, as a rule. I certainly don't after he played a manipulative LE cleric. He has also professed his desire to play the archetypical Lawful Stupid paladin.

[Svata]

Roxxy, I'm going to link you the sheet of a LN cleric I'm playing, and I want to know why you would or wouldn't allow him in a game you ran. His backstory is on the sheet, I just can't copy-paste on the device I'm on. "Level" is not a good enough reason.

Jalor

Semi-related, your "no non-good" policy disallows the inclusion of anyone seeking redemption, but that has not quite found it, and sometimes backslides into old habits.

[Roxxy]

Roxxy, I'm going to link you the sheet of a LN cleric I'm playing, and I want to know why you would or wouldn't allow him in a game you ran. His backstory is on the sheet, I just can't copy-paste on the device I'm on. "Level" is not a good enough reason.

Incompatible goals would be the main alignment reason. Everybody else is around to deal with the problems surrounding the misuse of magic and the exploding monster population, and is under royal commission (Which is why Neutrals don't much fit. It takes a special kind to fight the most evil things in the world for little reward and little chance of a lasting victory.).

Other issues are very setting specific (Necromancy is evil because of the spell components required and dangers inherent, clerics don't have deities because the only one still alive is very evil.)

Semi-related, your "no non-good" policy disallows the inclusion of anyone seeking redemption, but that has not quite found it, and sometimes backslides into old habits.

It'd be like letting a felon enlist.

[TandemChelipeds]

Incompatible goals would be the main alignment reason. Everybody else is around to deal with the problems surrounding the misuse of magic and the exploding monster population, and is under royal commission (Which is why Neutrals don't much fit. It takes a special kind to fight the most evil things in the world for little reward and little chance of a lasting victory.).

The first problem I see here is that these royals apparently lack coercive power, but somehow still maintain rulership. How have they not been deposed, if all it takes to resist their orders is to just say "nah, I don't feel like it"?

Other issues are very setting specific (Necromancy is evil because of the spell components required and dangers inherent, clerics don't have deities because the only one still alive is very evil.)

Those are good setting-specific points, but it looks like those necromancy details are tailor-made to minimize ambiguity, serving the agenda of black-and-white morality and reinforcing the related memes and worldview. And regardless of the specifics, the entire point of clerics is that they're drawn to the service of something larger than themselves. If a cleric is neutral, it's likely because whatever they choose to revere is an aloof force of nature, above the petty moral judgment of mortals. It doesn't mean they'll demand material compensation. It isn't inconceivable that a trickster cleric of riddles could follow the party to try to decipher the nature of a fellow party member, or that a lawful neutral cleric of death would follow them to ensure proper burial procedures are followed, ensuring safe passage to the afterlife(there could even be an entire faction of these following adventuring parties as standard procedure, leading to plot hooks; hell, it could be a perk for taking royally-sanctioned missions, justifying the presence of other neutral characters).

It'd be like letting a felon enlist.

Your concept of Good isn't terribly forgiving.

[hamishspence]

Your concept of Good isn't terribly forgiving.

Using felons to Do Good is actually a pretty common trope:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoxedCrook

as is enlisting felons in an army as the price of them not getting jail:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...BarsForStripes

[Roxxy]

The first problem I see here is that these royals apparently lack coercive power, but somehow still maintain rulership. How have they not been deposed, if all it takes to resist their orders is to just say "nah, I don't feel like it"?

The royals do have coercive power. That's what the military and people like the PCs are around for. They go after monsters and rogue mages all day long, but it's a fight of containment, not one that can be straight up won. The average person actually has a very high standard of living, largely because people like the PCs are out there constantly fighting to keep the bad things in check. The increasing monster population is a problem caused by increasing amounts of magic in the world itself, and it hasn't yet hit crisis level. Whether it will remains to be seen...

Those are good setting-specific points, but it looks like those necromancy details are tailor-made to minimize ambiguity, serving the agenda of black-and-white morality and reinforcing the related memes and worldview. And regardless of the specifics, the entire point of clerics is that they're drawn to the service of something larger than themselves.

Huh. I see Clerics more as philosophers who can manipulate the energies the deaths of so many deities released into the world. Or they become priests of the evil god.

Your concept of Good isn't terribly forgiving.

More like the King isn't.

This actually gets into another reason I turned away from alignment. As you can see, the themes of the game heavily emphasize not just Good, but also Law. Without alignment, I can just fluff the PCs as heroes in service of the crown, and it works just fine. With alignment, evil and neutral are gone, and chaos is hard to justify.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

You do away with alignment for the exact opposite reasons I normally see. Normally GMs do it because they want a degree of moral ambiguity in their games; you seem to be doing it because you want the players to be shining examples of moral righteousness.

Also, never answered my question about actual heroic mercenary characters.

[NichG]

Well, removing alignment means that players no longer have to play evil to take advantage of certain mechanical choices, so I can see how that would help if you wanted a game that's strictly heroic. Also, everyone has their own particular interpretation of the various alignments, not to mention WotC's various mutually contradictory takes on it, and often that leads to unfortunate implications. That sort of thing tends to grey out the morality quite a bit, because some of the things that good is required to do or permitted to do or empowered to do can be pretty horrendous (like the whole ravages thing, Sanctify the Wicked, etc). So if you want to have a very particular morality be the one that matters, all of the cruft and history that alignment brings with it is going to get in the way.

Its easier to tell a player 'in this setting, ending a life for any reason is considered immoral' rather than 'killing is always an Evil act' - the latter may well degenerate into a rules argument, and thats really not the point.

[TandemChelipeds]

The royals do have coercive power. That's what the military and people like the PCs are around for. They go after monsters and rogue mages all day long, but it's a fight of containment, not one that can be straight up won. The average person actually has a very high standard of living, largely because people like the PCs are out there constantly fighting to keep the bad things in check. The increasing monster population is a problem caused by increasing amounts of magic in the world itself, and it hasn't yet hit crisis level. Whether it will remains to be seen...
Huh. I see Clerics more as philosophers who can manipulate the energies the deaths of so many deities released into the world. Or they become priests of the evil god.



More like the King isn't.

This actually gets into another reason I turned away from alignment. As you can see, the themes of the game heavily emphasize not just Good, but also Law. Without alignment, I can just fluff the PCs as heroes in service of the crown, and it works just fine. With alignment, evil and neutral are gone, and chaos is hard to justify.

Reading this is like reading about some bizarre parallel universe, because I'm also planning to run a campaign in a world where most of the gods are gone, the only thing holding everything together is extremely lawful, and the players start out in its service. The difference is that I'm accounting for the possibility of player rebellion, and even encouraging it. Well, that, and in a lot of ways my setting's the polar opposite of yours.

In mine, religion is an extremely important element of the setting. The gods may not exist anymore, but due to their immortality they're caught in a horrific state, neither alive nor dead, caught in the collective consciousness of sentient life and forming pacts with clerics in an attempt to gain a foothold in reality. The alignments of the gods are kept secret, and the players will have been drafted by the overbearing inquisition of the setting's dominant religion, which serves the ultra-LN overgod who kicked out the rest of them in an act that might well have been completely necessary at the time. The setting's full of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and has lots of ordinary people doing horrible things to other people for reasons that may or may not even be grounded in reality. The worshipers of the other gods are all branded heretics, demonized and hunted down, and it's the players' job to do the hunting. Some of these gods' worshipers even deserve to be hunted, but for the most part it's a wholly unnecessary practice, carried out entirely to reinforce the authority of the main deity, which said god may or may not have even sanctioned. Clerics and other divine casters(and PC classes in general) are extremely rare, so most of any given deity's worshipers can be any alignment, and twist their teachings in just about any direction. Personally, I think it'll be fun if I ever get it off the ground. I want to keep the players guessing and see how they react to things.

[Roxxy]

You do away with alignment for the exact opposite reasons I normally see. Normally GMs do it because they want a degree of moral ambiguity in their games; you seem to be doing it because you want the players to be shining examples of moral righteousness.

I think part of the issue is that I tend to view things in a stricter moral light.

Also, never answered my question about actual heroic mercenary characters.

Didn't see it.

Well, removing alignment means that players no longer have to play evil to take advantage of certain mechanical choices, so I can see how that would help if you wanted a game that's strictly heroic. Also, everyone has their own particular interpretation of the various alignments, not to mention WotC's various mutually contradictory takes on it, and often that leads to unfortunate implications. That sort of thing tends to grey out the morality quite a bit, because some of the things that good is required to do or permitted to do or empowered to do can be pretty horrendous (like the whole ravages thing, Sanctify the Wicked, etc). So if you want to have a very particular morality be the one that matters, all of the cruft and history that alignment brings with it is going to get in the way.

That, and good and evil don't exist by being cosmic knowns, they are enforced because people chose to define them.

I think part of the issue is that, with my campaign setup, I sometimes view what is good based on what is lawful, do to the fact that the government is the primary driving force. That works better without a codified alignment system, because with the D&D system it can lead to judging CG by the standards of LG. Better to just say that, while the kingdom has corruption (and the PCs will have to deal with that head on at times), it is generally a force of good, and does try its best to protect and provide for citizens.

Its easier to tell a player 'in this setting, ending a life for any reason is considered immoral' rather than 'killing is always an Evil act' - the latter may well degenerate into a rules argument, and thats really not the point.

Killing is something you should do in the protection of yourself and others. In that context, it isn't immoral. It's when you kill for other reasons that it becomes immoral.

Reading this is like reading about some bizarre parallel universe, because I'm also planning to run a campaign in a world where most of the gods are gone, the only thing holding everything together is extremely lawful, and the players start out in its service. The difference is that I'm accounting for the possibility of player rebellion, and even encouraging it. Well, that, and in a lot of ways my setting's the polar opposite of yours.

In mine, religion is an extremely important element of the setting. The gods may not exist anymore, but due to their immortality they're caught in a horrific state, neither alive nor dead, caught in the collective consciousness of sentient life and forming pacts with clerics in an attempt to gain a foothold in reality. The alignments of the gods are kept secret, and the players will have been drafted by the overbearing inquisition of the setting's dominant religion, which serves the ultra-LN overgod who kicked out the rest of them in an act that might well have been completely necessary at the time. The setting's full of fear, uncertainty and doubt, and has lots of ordinary people doing horrible things to other people for reasons that may or may not even be grounded in reality. The worshipers of the other gods are all branded heretics, demonized and hunted down, and it's the players' job to do the hunting. Some of these gods' worshipers even deserve to be hunted, but for the most part it's a wholly unnecessary practice, carried out entirely to reinforce the authority of the main deity, which said god may or may not have even sanctioned. Clerics and other divine casters(and PC classes in general) are extremely rare, so most of any given deity's worshipers can be any alignment, and twist their teachings in just about any direction. Personally, I think it'll be fun if I ever get it off the ground. I want to keep the players guessing and see how they react to things.

My setting started out with gods who were like the Greeks: kind of jerks. At the time gods lived, divine spellcasters were getting their magic tapping into the planet itself, and arcane casters were mostly Witches. The gods did too many jerky things, and eventually prompted revolt. As powerful as a god is, they are not immortal, and the humans had powerful allies such as demigods and dragons. When all was said and done, only one god was left alive, and he was forced to flee. Eldritch power from the gods flooded the world, and arcane casters learned to tap into this, resulting in the explosion of magitech. The influx of eldritch power is also driving the monster population to expand, and a lot of people are finding evil ways to use this newfound power. The government isn't just going to lay down and take this, and has been is using warriors like the PCs to fight the problem head on.

Basically, thanks to magic people live at a high standard. Food is plentiful, most people work in service jobs instead of agriculture, the (magical) railroads can get you wherever you need, and even the poor have it much better off than before the deaths of the gods. On the surface, things are good. Underneath that surface, however, we have the problem of the increasing monster population, mages using newfound magic power in evil ways, and cultists of the one remaining god (who wants to make the world suffer for the rebellion, but cannot directly manifest for fear of being killed). People like the PCs spend their time fighting these forces, so that the people of the kingdom can continue having such nice lives.

The most common spellcaster by far is the Alchemist, with Wizards being somewhat common, and the rest of the arcane and divine casters being uncommon or rare.

[Sartharina]

That theme is real life. A certain quote by the Giant about "petty escapism" comes to mind. If you want your games to not mirror the real world, you know what you are doing. I, on the other hand, like to explore how emotions and motivations operate in a realistic (read: gray and darker gray) manner.

The Giant's comment is about writing for an audience with an intent to be more than pulp fiction, not playing games with a friend (or writing pulp fiction). "Petty Escapism" is perfectly fine and even laudable for playing a game with friends, or producing pulp fiction.

[ImperatorV]

The Giant's comment is about writing for an audience with an intent to be more than pulp fiction, not playing games with a friend (or writing pulp fiction). "Petty Escapism" is perfectly fine and even laudable for playing a game with friends, or producing pulp fiction.

I make everything literary. It's part of my in-depth examination of life and philosophy. Playing a game with friends can be used for more intellectual pursuits than "just for fun." If anything, I find said intellectual pursuits more fun than trying to simplify things for the sake of a "good time." It's entirely possible I am alone in that regard. I don't understand why some people don't enjoy trying to solve difficult problems and issues, but at the end of the day it's not my business to tell other people how their thought process should work. That's why when I realized people were supporting the alignment bans because they don't want to deal with dark realistic issues I stopped arguing.

[TandemChelipeds]

I think part of the issue is that I tend to view things in a stricter moral light.

Didn't see it.

That, and good and evil don't exist by being cosmic knowns, they are enforced because people chose to define them.

I think part of the issue is that, with my campaign setup, I sometimes view what is good based on what is lawful, do to the fact that the government is the primary driving force. That works better without a codified alignment system, because with the D&D system it can lead to judging CG by the standards of LG. Better to just say that, while the kingdom has corruption (and the PCs will have to deal with that head on at times), it is generally a force of good, and does try its best to protect and provide for citizens.

Killing is something you should do in the protection of yourself and others. In that context, it isn't immoral. It's when you kill for other reasons that it becomes immoral.

My setting started out with gods who were like the Greeks: kind of jerks. At the time gods lived, divine spellcasters were getting their magic tapping into the planet itself, and arcane casters were mostly Witches. The gods did too many jerky things, and eventually prompted revolt. As powerful as a god is, they are not immortal, and the humans had powerful allies such as demigods and dragons. When all was said and done, only one god was left alive, and he was forced to flee. Eldritch power from the gods flooded the world, and arcane casters learned to tap into this, resulting in the explosion of magitech. The influx of eldritch power is also driving the monster population to expand, and a lot of people are finding evil ways to use this newfound power. The government isn't just going to lay down and take this, and has been is using warriors like the PCs to fight the problem head on.

Basically, thanks to magic people live at a high standard. Food is plentiful, most people work in service jobs instead of agriculture, the (magical) railroads can get you wherever you need, and even the poor have it much better off than before the deaths of the gods. On the surface, things are good. Underneath that surface, however, we have the problem of the increasing monster population, mages using newfound magic power in evil ways, and cultists of the one remaining god (who wants to make the world suffer for the rebellion, but cannot directly manifest for fear of being killed). People like the PCs spend their time fighting these forces, so that the people of the kingdom can continue having such nice lives.

The most common spellcaster by far is the Alchemist, with Wizards being somewhat common, and the rest of the arcane and divine casters being uncommon or rare.

So it's a bit like an Eberron/Tippyverse setting? Mine's more along the lines of the Byzantine empire and Mongolia, with a hint of Shin Megami Tensei, Berserk, and (thematically)Kamen Rider Gaim and Metal Gear Solid. There's a three-way cosmic struggle with a couple of wild card factions waiting to gum up the works, multiple apocalypses coming in from just about every angle conceivable, and at least one of them is actually the agenda of a good-aligned deity. It'll be tense. I'm setting things up to be a grimdark dark fantasy setting with black-and-grey morality, but if my players go the good route anyway and work for their happy ending in spite of the no-win scenario I've set up, I'll be proud of them. I mean, seriously. I myself can't think of an unequivocally positive ending for the world I've thought up.

I make everything literary. It's part of my in-depth examination of life and philosophy. Playing a game with friends can be used for more intellectual pursuits than "just for fun." If anything, I find said intellectual pursuits more fun than trying to simplify things for the sake of a "good time." It's entirely possible I am alone in that regard. I don't understand why some people don't enjoy trying to solve difficult problems and issues, but at the end of the day it's not my business to tell other people how their thought process should work. That's why when I realized people were supporting the alignment bans because they don't want to deal with dark realistic issues I stopped arguing.

Hey, to be fair I'd probably ban NE and CE most of the time anyway. My rule of thumb for evil characters is that I have to trust the maturity of the player, and they have to give me a character summary(which I should get from my players anyway). I've played with the sociopath guy too many times to just assume the game will work out if I let people play evil without examining it first.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Didn't see it.

Last page.

I think part of the issue is that, with my campaign setup, I sometimes view what is good based on what is lawful, do to the fact that the government is the primary driving force.

I tend to separate the 'right' (Good) thing to do and accept that it is different from the 'Lawful' thing to do. It is a Lawful thing to turn in your best friend when he has been convicted for a crime both of you know for a fact didn't happen, and rely on the authorities to sort things out. It's a Good thing to flee the incorrect law and figure out what really happened. Its a Chaotic thing to not trust the law, because you're pretty sure it's corrupt.

Killing is something you should do in the protection of yourself and others. In that context, it isn't immoral. It's when you kill for other reasons that it becomes immoral.

I presume you are limiting this to sentient beings. Anyway, what if you are a band of mercenaries that specialize in fortifications, that travel to defend as many people as possible?

[ImperatorV]

Hey, to be fair I'd probably ban NE and CE most of the time anyway. My rule of thumb for evil characters is that I have to trust the maturity of the player, and they have to give me a character summary(which I should get from my players anyway). I've played with the sociopath guy too many times to just assume the game will work out if I let people play evil without examining it first.

I don't think there's any doubt that this point is valid. I personally would phrase it as not so much an alignment ban as a trust that you have to play the alignment in a realistic, interesting, and non-disruptive manner or you will have the privilege of playing that alignment revoked. Similar to what you did with your sociopath guy. The main difference is that you seem want to trust the player before you give him that privilege in the first place, where as I would need evidence of his not playing it correctly before I would disallow it.

EDIT: Word of mouth of other players saying he's done it wrong in other games would be enough evidence.

[Roxxy]

So it's a bit like an Eberron/Tippyverse setting? Mine's more along the lines of the Byzantine empire and Mongolia, with a hint of Shin Megami Tensei, Berserk, and (thematically)Kamen Rider Gaim and Metal Gear Solid. There's a three-way cosmic struggle with a couple of wild card factions waiting to gum up the works, multiple apocalypses coming in from just about every angle conceivable, and at least one of them is actually the agenda of a good-aligned deity. It'll be tense. I'm setting things up to be a grimdark dark fantasy setting with black-and-grey morality, but if my players go the good route anyway and work for their happy ending in spite of the no-win scenario I've set up, I'll be proud of them. I mean, seriously. I myself can't think of an unequivocally positive ending for the world I've thought up.

Yea, my setting is more optimistic in the sense that the world itself is doing well, and the government has a decent chance of figuring out how to cope with rising threat levels. The pessimistic part is that the monsters aren't going to just disappear, rogue mages are going to continue being a problem as long as the government has to wait for them to do bad things before they can catch them, and the one remaining god (who uses cults among humans to wreak all sorts of havoc) has to return to the materiel plane to be killed and isn't stupid enough to do that. So, the total happy ending victory scenario is that government agents continue fighting and dying for the foreseeable future, but keep the problem from getting so bad that they get overwhelmed, so life for the civilians remains pretty good.

I don't own Eberron, but some of what I heard inspired me. A much bigger inspiration was, funny enough, Shonen anime. I also went for an ethnically diverse setting. Most fantasy campaign settings are in Not-Europe (commonly including Not-Middle East), or maybe Not-Asia. I went for Not-North America, with massive immigrant populations. I focus on the west, where the Not-Europeans and Not-Asians are both massive groups, and the Not-Native Americans are still around (it should be noted that the Colonial era has been over for a while, so the related atrocities are not a focus of the story). So, if the players rolled up a Not-Italian Cavalier, a Not-Welsh Arcanist, a Not-Vietnamese Alchemist, a Not-Salish Druid, and a Not-Japanese Ninja, the composition of the party would make total sense in setting, and the civilians the PCs meet wouldn't find the presence of any of these ethnicities unheard of. My current PC race list composes 30 races, and all of them are considered human. the Magnus (Homo Sapiens) is the most common by sheer numbers, but is not the majority in every nation (races don't form their own nations). So, people are used to the diversity. When that Party above has a Seraphim (looks like a Magnus with majestic wings, wings don't actually work because the gods got mad at the race a really long time ago), an Elf, a Catfolk, an Orc, and a Tengu it isn't going to be a gigantic shock to most civilians. The only Paizo class the setting doesn't have is the Summoner, and I use several 3PP classes (Psionics are exceedingly rare but do exist, using the Dreamscarred Press take, Path of War is allowed, I have the PDF of the Machinesmith class from Neo Exodus and made it the second most common magic user after the Alchemist), so character options are pretty diverse aside from the whole being good thing.

[Roxxy]

Last page.

Haven't seen those.

I tend to separate the 'right' (Good) thing to do and accept that it is different from the 'Lawful' thing to do. It is a Lawful thing to turn in your best friend when he has been convicted for a crime both of you know for a fact didn't happen, and rely on the authorities to sort things out. It's a Good thing to flee the incorrect law and figure out what really happened. Its a Chaotic thing to not trust the law, because you're pretty sure it's corrupt.

I focus so much on the actions of the (strong centralized) government that I find myself sometimes conflating Good and Law without even realizing it. From a philosophical view, I wouldn't say Law is always Good, it's just that the story usually ends up being the law on the good side and criminals on the bad side, so I get into conflating Good and Law together. Problematic for CG characters, but without alignment it seems not to be problematic at all.

I presume you are limiting this to sentient beings.

Of course.

Anyway, what if you are a band of mercenaries that specialize in fortifications, that travel to defend as many people as possible?

Going by Webster Dictionary, a mercenary is "one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service". What you describe wouldn't fit, so it would be more of a private auxiliary to the government than a mercenary company, since money is not the primary reason for fighting.

[Desiani]

As an update.

I have dealt with the ban of starting as a True Nuetral Cleric of Charon ( a Neutral Evil Horseman) who channels negative energy. My plan is to follows Charon's general method of obtaining souls by being the Intermediary who listens to peoples needs and discussing with Charon.

The plan is to trend downwards toward evil with in the flow of the campaign by just following my god! :)

The question I now bestow on the playground is how do you handle the in game 'alignment shifts' within the game by following a deity's dogma? I've already confirmed that the evil ban is strictly as a starting ban... if you fall in game by your actions then that is your character's issues.

[Raven777]

Just make sure the DM doesn't steal your character post-shift.

[TandemChelipeds]

Haven't seen those.

Do it, dawg. Berserk is the hot diggity. Also, it has a magnificently anachronistic soundtrack for its grimdark low fantasy setting. This is what plays when Guts goes off on brooding monologues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZa0Yh6e7dw
"Sparks: The light born in the clash when two swords meet. They serve me well. Throughout my life, the moments and people who have defined me... they have all been illuminated by sparks."

I focus so much on the actions of the (strong centralized) government that I find myself sometimes conflating Good and Law without even realizing it. From a philosophical view, I wouldn't say Law is always Good, it's just that the story usually ends up being the law on the good side and criminals on the bad side, so I get into conflating Good and Law together. Problematic for CG characters, but without alignment it seems not to be problematic at all.

That's your problem, not anyone else's. Just because you can't imagine the CG alignment, that doesn't mean your players can't. I mean, a chaotic good character probably wouldn't be going along with the role you've assigned your players, but they'd still exist. They'd just end up overthrowing the state and bringing the new order to its knees once they find out the magical infrastructure's responsible for all the monstrous activity. Chaotic good types see problems, they solve them. Status quo be damned. Yeah, it'd derail your campaign, but derailments are good. The most interesting stories come from derailments.

Of course.Going by Webster Dictionary, a mercenary is "one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service". What you describe wouldn't fit, so it would be more of a private auxiliary to the government than a mercenary company, since money is not the primary reason for fighting.

What are you talking about? It's entirely possible to have a mercenary band whose skill set focuses on defense, and offers protection to the highest bidder. We have those on a smaller scale irl, they're called bodyguards. Granted, it is likely to be less common, especially since spending months on end in a single fort isn't likely to be as profitable or bearable as fighting a skirmish and moving on to another, but if a force like that did exist, they'd still be mercenaries. They'd still fit the exact definition you posted. I think you're just determined to believe that mercenaries are evil. Maybe because you view fighting wars for money as an abstract ethical scenario, rather than the reality just about any former child soldier has to live out.