Rob, you’ll need to make Spellcraft checks to add those spells and the ones from the scrolls you requisitioned to your spellbook.

You can either roll before the session (spending one hour per spell), or you can use Invisible Castle.

I've more or less finished leveling up my character; I've updated Obsidian Portal with everything but the new spells, which I'm not sure how you want to do. I've attached the entire character file to this post, and below is the new spellbook.

Spellbook: 0– all; 1– Alarm, Break (T), Color Spray, Comp Lang, Crafter's Fortune (T), Enlarge Person (T), Floating Disk, Gravity Bow (T), Grease, Identify, Mage Armor, Reduce Person (T), Silent Image, Unseen Servant;

EDIT: the (T) means its a transmutation spell; it's mostly for myself, so I don't screw up and prepare non-transmutation spells in my transmutation spell slots. I added Alarm and Crafter's Fortune as my 2 free spells for reaching level 2. Crafter's Fortune is for, well, crafting and stuff, while Alarm will be handy in another few levels (only lasts 4 hours right now).

Right, apparently it's "misunderstand what was meant and attack rob" day, so I'll just walk away.

It's a sign of the End Times! Run for your lives!

My positions:
1) Words should mean what they mean.  In the alignment system used in 3.5 and 3.501, they changed the meanings of the words when they could have just as easily changed the words.  The words they use don't mean what they mean in English, and this is confusing.  It's confusing like saying "he is a verb" and then saying that "He he the game." is not a grammatically correct sentence because "he" is not a verb.  This terminology sucks.
2) Alignment does not encourage good role-playing.  If you are going to role-play someone and make sure your character's alignment is apparent, then you automatically exaggerate the alignment.  Alignment divides character personalities into a meager six packages, most of which are automatically boring.  It is perfectly reasonable to exaggerate here because that is what the system encourages; it will happen even if the definition of chaotic is less extreme.  The system itself sucks.
3) One could replace absolute alignment with relative alignment fairly easily, based on personality traits.  This would encourage better roleplaying and be less confusing, but it would require a little bit more adjudication on the part of the DM.  It might be difficult to write it up to be universally usable, but I don't think it would be as time-consuming as writing a weather generation program.

I did not say that the old alignment definitions were good from a game-play standpoint.  I said that the new alignment definitions are bad from a reading comprehension standpoint, while the entire alignment system is bad from a game-play standpoint.

4) New point: don't pick on Josh.  It never felt like his characters were acting at random.  They all had personalities and were entertaining.  In terms of actions Broca was no more crazy than a certain character whose defining characteristics were that he liked to be hit, he had a name, and (null).

Duke Nuke Forever will (probably) be released this year.

I mention all of this because your definitions, while quite reasonable on paper, run into a snag. A good portion of players are going to go Chaotic "Neutral", as described above, and the more "extreme / niche / out there" the base definition for Chaotic becomes, the worse those players will behave, because the book says that's what they are supposed / allowed to do.

I think Mike’s point is that the alignment system is badly defined and should be replaced or discarded. I’m sympathetic to this view, but alignment is ingrained deeply enough in Pathfinder’s mechanics that I’m not comfortable enough replacing it with a detect enemy paradigm.

Like everything else in a game, it's not enough to just sit and think about how alignment should work; you need to look at the extremes and see how players will react while at them, because that's where a significant sub-set of the player-base will immediately go.

And the DM tells them to knock it the fuck off.

Others (20-30% based on my personal experiences) instead stay at the extreme, toning back their behavior only a little, because letting go is fun (I'm looking at you Josh)

    your example doesn't make sense.  Shortly after here, though, was when I stopped paying attention to whatever you wrote, though.

Rob is conflating eccentric characters with … something. I don’t see what that has to do with alignment though.

people are morons

No one can argue with that 

Others (20-30% based on my personal experiences) instead stay at the extreme, toning back their behavior only a little, because letting go is fun (I'm looking at you Josh)

    your example doesn't make sense. I make attempts to make my characters actively engaged with other characters if possible.  (Except for Broca, that guy was crazy)

[inherently]

I guess I also think that the old alignment definitions are "correct".  The word chaotic means "completely lacking order" and not "values freedom".  The word lawful means "obeys the law" and not "is trustworthy and obeys legitimate authority".  By the correct definitions of these words, they are mutually exclusive.

The problem with using these definitions is, well, people are morons.

A significant portion of players, particularly inexperienced or younger players, will automatically go to the very far end of what is permissible in any given artificial system of morality - and then start pushing. The whole "I get to play a total badass loner who follows his own rules and no one else's" power fantasy is very common.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

However, it doesn't work so good when trying to put together a team or group or party. Most - and I stress most - players eventually more or less move on (though coming back to it every once and a while is fun).

Others (20-30% based on my personal experiences) instead stay at the extreme, toning back their behavior only a little, because letting go is fun (I'm looking at you Josh). Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, though it does somewhat limit the sorts of campaigns one can play in (which is why players tend to move on in the first place).

A rare few don't do either of the above, and just keep on playing the same "total badass loner action hero" person over and over again; these players can prove rather... tiring to deal with. I am unfortunate to have gamed with two people like this on a regular (not one-time) basis.

I mention all of this because your definitions, while quite reasonable on paper, run into a snag. A good portion of players are going to go Chaotic "Neutral", as described above, and the more "extreme / niche / out there" the base definition for Chaotic becomes, the worse those players will behave, because the book says that's what they are supposed / allowed to do.

Like everything else in a game, it's not enough to just sit and think about how alignment should work; you need to look at the extremes and see how players will react while at them, because that's where a significant sub-set of the player-base will immediately go.

I only picked level 8 because that was what Rob used.  I think that the multi-class would be better than the pure monk at any level where the next level doesn't result in the monk getting a boost to his damage dice.

Poking around a bit in my DPR spreadsheet, it looks like they are close with the one level of barbarian having a slight advantage. If the pure monk has the alchemist in the party brew him some potions of rage, then he embarasses the multiclassed monk.

I wouldn't say it's overpowered, I guess, but I still think that it is silly (out of control aikido!).

I guess I’m tending to think of the monk as a magical martial artist rather than as whatever stereotype the RAW are going for.

I guess I also think that the old alignment definitions are "correct".  The word chaotic means "completely lacking order" and not "values freedom".  The word lawful means "obeys the law" and not "is trustworthy and obeys legitimate authority".  By the correct definitions of these words, they are mutually exclusive.  By the technical game definitions, the only thing stopping someone from being both lawful and chaotic simultaneously is the fact that mutual exclusivity is an added assumption.

Sure. However, it’s probably best to just treat them as jargon.