Do you waive alignment restrictions?

[gomipile]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?

For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)

[hivedragon]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?

For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)

then he's neutral, as is anyone who doesn't see themselves as having an alignment/thread

[Sir_Chivalry]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?

For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)

The character is neutral until there is an actual character, and not a cartoonish parody. Opposition to oppression and being libertarian do not require being chaotic, and organization, personal honour, and disorder that cause obsession do not require lawful.

[Amnestic]

Yes.

Not much else to say really.

[TroubleBrewing]

Yup. I'm fine with Lawful Barbarians, Chaotic Monks and especially Good Assassins. That one always bothered me the most.

[Comet]

For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)

He would be Chaotic, I think, provided he actually takes action to fight the power and deliver freedom to the masses. Alignment is a cosmic force that manifests through actions and meaningful decisions, not the way you keep your socks organized.

That said... This stuff has always been a cause of some debate due to its vague descriptions and, as such, waiving the restrictions would be OK in my book.

[Burner28]

Yup. I'm fine with Lawful Barbarians, Chaotic Monks and especially Good Assassins. That one always bothered me the most.

Why does that bother you?


He would be Chaotic, I think, provided he actually takes action to fight the power and deliver freedom to the masses. Alignment is a cosmic force that manifests through actions and meaningful decisions, not the way you keep your socks organized.

Well some people would actually say that character is rather neutral.


Opposition to oppression and being libertarian do not require being chaotic, and organization, personal honour, and disorder that cause obsession do not require lawful.

Hm... your explaining for this statement would indeed be interesting. How do you define Lawful and Chaotic if you do not consider honour to be incompatible with being Chaotic and pposition to oppression and being libertarian incompatible with being Lawful.

[gomipile]

Why does that bother you?



Well some people would actually say that character is rather neutral.

I think he means that the alignment restriction on the Assassin class bother him.

For example, we have many "lawful good" assassins in our real world history.

(edited to remove possible political forum rule breaking.)

[TroubleBrewing]

Why does that bother you?

There's nothing inherently evil about assassination. There are plenty of historical examples of evil despots being "recalled" at the point of a knife.

EDIT:
I think he means that the alignment restriction on the Assassin class bother him.

For example, we have many "lawful good" assassins in the employ of the United States. I've met some of them.

This.

[Comet]

There's nothing inherently evil about assassination. There are plenty of historical examples of evil despots being "recalled" at the point of a knife.

EDIT:

This.

The Assassin prestige class, as written, uses poison and dark magic though, both of which are labeled Evil.

But yeah, no reason to stick with that flavour unless you really want to. Unless the story of the game is particularly about cosmic battles between good and evil or law and chaos, I don't usually pay much attention to alignment at all.

[Curmudgeon]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?
Never. It's part of the challenge of the game to work with the options available. So no Paladin/Assassin characters. (Paladin of Slaughter/Assassin is perfectly fine, of course.)

If your roleplay style really doesn't fit within the alignment system, it's usually not an issue. But if you pick a class with an alignment requirement and play contrary to that alignment, you should expect to suffer the consequences of alignment shift. So if that's going to be an issue, don't pick options that are restricted by alignment. It's pretty simple, actually. There are hundreds of classes and thousands of feats in D&D 3.5, so you really can make it work.

[Amnestic]

The Assassin prestige class, as written, uses poison and dark magic, though, both of which are labeled Evil.

Except when you use the special poisons 'Ravages' which are good. Because we say so, that's why. *eyeroll*

Also, using [Evil] spells doesn't make you evil either, I don't think.

[big teej]

I enforce them.

and thus far, I don't allow for variants either.
(I'm looking at you non LG paladin!)

too me, a 'good assassin' is known as a rogue.

but that's just how I run my game, I have nothing against people who don't enforce it, people who don't use alignment at all, etc.


and I just realized half an hour to get to work, so I'm going to go now before I finish my thought.

[Veyr]

The Assassin prestige class, as written, uses poison and dark magic though, both of which are labeled Evil.
In Core, neither magic nor poison were ever described as evil (aside from spells with the [Evil] descriptor, but the only one of those on the Assassin's spell list is Protection from Good, and the Assassin casts Arcane spells anyway, so a Good Assassin could still cast Protection from Good). Poison is illegal in most settings (says so in the DMG, as I recall), but that would make it unlawful or chaotic, not evil.

It wasn't until the idiocy that was the Book of Exalted Deeds that poison became evil. Just look at the Couatls in Core; they have a right nasty poison, and are paragons of Goodness.

[Comet]

All good points.

To be fair, there's also the fact that, again as written in the book, the entry requirement of the prestige class is the one thing that definitely makes anyone willing to take it Evil.

Rogues sneak around and kill people without being seen. Assassins sneak around and kill people without being seen, in underhanded and brutal ways for maximum efficiency. They also kill people for profit or personal enjoyment, not any higher purpose.

It's all flavour, for sure, and I see no reason not to change it. As it is, though, it makes sense for Assassins to be evil unless you change their flavour, notably the entry requirement.

[KillianHawkeye]

To be fair, there's also the fact that, again as written in the book, the entry requirement of the prestige class is the one thing that definitely makes anyone willing to take it Evil.

Rogues sneak around and kill people without being seen. Assassins sneak around and kill people without being seen, in underhanded and brutal ways for maximum efficiency. They also kill people for profit or personal enjoyment, not any higher purpose.

It's all flavour, for sure, and I see no reason not to change it. As it is, though, it makes sense for Assassins to be evil unless you change their flavour, notably the entry requirement.

Yeah, the Assassin prestige class presupposes a world-spanning "Assassin's Guild" type of organization, like the Dark Brotherhood from any Elder Scrolls game, which you MUST join to gain levels as an Assassin. If your world does not contain such an organization, it makes sense to change the entry requirements or refluff the class entirely.

[Hirax]

All a class is to me is a stat block. It's not a ranger, rogue, or paladin unless the player says it is. As long as their character concept and roleplaying make sense, I completely ignore alignment and code of conduct requirements, though depending on the situation if they're ignoring codes of conduct I'd demand elements of some sort of fall in their backstory and roleplaying. Or something. Deviations from rules are great opportunities for creative roleplaying IMO.

[Veyr]

the Dark Brotherhood from any Elder Scrolls game
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind had no Dark Brotherhood until the Tribunal expansion; the assassin's guild in the original game was the Morag Tong.

And neither The Elder Scrolls Legends: Battlespire nor The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard contained either guild. The Elder Scrolls: Arena, The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion all did, so it looks more like half the Elder Scrolls games had them (if you count expansions, Tribunal did, but neither Bloodmoon nor The Shivering Isles did). I don't know (or honestly care) if the cell phone games had the organization, heh.

[KillianHawkeye]

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind had no Dark Brotherhood until the Tribunal expansion; the assassin's guild in the original game was the Morag Tong.

And neither The Elder Scrolls Legends: Battlespire nor The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard contained either guild. The Elder Scrolls: Arena, The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion all did, so it looks more like half the Elder Scrolls games had them (if you count expansions, Tribunal did, but neither Bloodmoon nor The Shivering Isles did). I don't know (or honestly care) if the cell phone games had the organization, heh.

Okay, I guess there are way more games in that series than I thought (cell phone games? :smallconfused:). I've mostly played Daggerfall and Oblivion, and a little bit of Morrowind, so I just assumed it was the same Assassin's Guild in all of them.

Anyway, regardless of how many Assassin's Guilds there are, the D&D Assassin class does imply joining one.

[HunterOfJello]

The alignment system is an attempt at simplifying ethics into 9 different categories of behavioral patterns, that are ultimately decided upon by the gods.

Unless the game calls for ignoring restrictions (like Clerics in Eberron) I prefer to rationally think out what was intended by the alignment restriction and have that original purpose maintained as a requirement.

In my games, a person's alignment for purposes of getting hit by Holy/Unholy/Axiomatic/Anarchic weapons is decided upon by the gods based on their previous actions during their lifetime. This would be held is a slightly different light than alignment restrictions of other natures.

I think that good and evil are concepts that are easy to understand for most players and that the characters involved can usually identify with being either good in their nature, netural or evil in their personal nature. Restrictions to those three categories are easy to decide and rule upon.

Law, netural and Chaotic are harder to describe and would have to be determined on a case by case basis that would be agreed upon by the DM and player(s) involved. For players who understand ethics I would have no problem with a player playing a CG Paladin who adheres to Utilitarianism instead of the prescribed Paladin of Freedom code of conduct in UE. A traditional paladin is obviously an example of a divinely inspired Deontologist whos actions are determined as good or evil by the action itself and not the consequences. A Utilitarian CG Paladin would be able to commit acts of evil if they can be justified for the greater good, but would fall if they ever commit an evil act that would be considered selfish or against the greater good.

~

I think that alignments can be established for any character, although they may not completely fit in to the traditional 9 roles and may have to be justified in another manner. However, the alignment restrictions are important for many of the more powerful classes and I think that many of the restrictions serve to enhance the game by limiting those characters and making sure that they carefully consider their actions.

Druids should maintain a degree of neutrality considering their background and their divine connection with nature. Crusaders should be limited to the outer 8 alignments because a Crusader who crusades for Neutrality really doesn't make much sense.

~

In conclusion, I think the alignment system is important in 3.5e D&D and should be loosely adhered to with an open mind by those who have a knowledge of ethics. However, if your intention is just to smooth your game over for the players to have more fun, or you don't have a proper knowledge of ethics and have only been taught lessons about morality from your local religious group, then I would suggest dropping the system altogether.

[NNescio]

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind had no Dark Brotherhood until the Tribunal expansion; the assassin's guild in the original game was the Morag Tong.

And neither The Elder Scrolls Legends: Battlespire nor The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard contained either guild. The Elder Scrolls: Arena, The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion all did, so it looks more like half the Elder Scrolls games had them (if you count expansions, Tribunal did, but neither Bloodmoon nor The Shivering Isles did). I don't know (or honestly care) if the cell phone games had the organization, heh.

The Dark Brotherhood is present in Morrowind as well; a couple Morag Tong quests involve them as 'antagonists'.

('though technically, the game files don't consider them as a 'faction' until Tribunal is installed.)

[PollyOliver]

My group plays with most alignment restrictions tweaked or discarded, and with alignments more as general averages. Paladins can be any (and within one step of their deity or ideal), monks can be whatever, etc. Our main DM once let me re-fluff assassin as part of a strike force for a good church, before we had BoED.

Especially if a class is fluffed for a setting other than one of our homebrew worlds, alignment restrictions often get lost or changed in the re-fluffing; one such is Telflammar Shadowlord. In one world we've played in, they were instead the elite stealth fighters of a group fey-descended elves, and can be any alignment but tend toward chaotic and good.

To answer the second part of the OP: this is something of a problem when you look too deeply into alignments. You can have a character who believes freedom is the ultimate ideal to strive for, but believes in strict adherence to law and order as the mechanism by which the optimal level of freedom can be attained for everyone. I've never really quite known how to class that (I've played it before) except shrug, split the difference, and call it neutral. Fortunately, in an actually feudal and medieval world this doesn't really come up, but in other settings it's makes things complicated if alignment really matters, especially with an inexperienced DM or a small sample size of actions.

[NNescio]

...To answer the second part of the OP: this is something of a problem when you look too deeply into alignments. You can have a character who believes freedom is the ultimate ideal to strive for, but believes in strict adherence to law and order as the mechanism by which the optimal level of freedom can be attained for everyone. I've never really quite known how to class that (I've played it before) except shrug, split the difference, and call it neutral. Fortunately, in an actually feudal and medieval world this doesn't really come up, but in other settings it's makes things complicated if alignment really matters, especially with an inexperienced DM or a small sample size of actions.

Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral. There's probably a decent chunk of American lawyers/judges who have similar ideals, and Superman values individual freedom rather highly as well.

[Veyr]

The Dark Brotherhood is present in Morrowind as well; a couple Morag Tong quests involve them as 'antagonists'.

('though technically, the game files don't consider them as a 'faction' until Tribunal is installed.)
I'm aware, but that's a stretch. You can't join it, was my point. Else I'd probably have to count the other games because they contain readable books that mention the Dark Brotherhood.

[Eldonauran]

Most of the games I run are pretty absolute about alignment. It is a driving force in the universe and colors everything. Waiving alignment restrictions are not an acceptable choice. Unless we are playing a homebrewed world, fluff is the stuff of adamantine and unchangable. Classes are not lumps lumps of stats or abilities, but actually mean something. Oh, dare I say it!?, multiclass exp penalties are always in place.

But, there are small exceptions here and there. Every DM worth his salt has a few of those.

That's that particular flavor of D&D that my players and me enjoy. To each his own. :smallwink:

[PollyOliver]

Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral. There's probably a decent chunk of American lawyers/judges who have similar ideals, and Superman values individual freedom rather highly as well.

I can definitely see that, but the problem becomes how much weight you put on ends vs. means. For the character I'm talking about, the ultimate ideal was freedom--in essence freedom = good. (Think the garuda, if you've ever read Perdido Street Station; the one crime of their society is "choice theft", with varying degrees of severity for assault, rape, murder, etc.) In a perfect world, in which people were good and not only didn't infringe on the freedom of others but also helped the unfortunate to the best of their ability, she would have believed in no laws and no restrictions on freedom. The world being decidedly imperfect, she believed that law was the means by which the optimal amount of freedom could be achieved for people, especially those without the means to defend themselves. Law to her was in essence an unfortunate side effect of living in an imperfect world, but in that imperfect world the best means to support freedom.

Since classically in D&D placing high value on personal freedom is considered chaotic, and since the character considered law in a sense a necessary "evil", I could make a strong case for her being chaotic. But because from a practical standpoint she believed that the law and adherence to it was absolutely vital for the overall good of society, the case that she was lawful is probably equally strong. Hence giving up in frustration and calling it neutral, to avoid getting into a never ending ends vs. means debate with myself.

[Thurbane]

When I DM, I generally view alignment as a guideline, rather than a straight jacket for behavior - trying to shoehorn every sentient being into one of nine personality types just seems asinine to me. I'm also a strong proponent of behavior determines alignment, rather than vice versa...

[Epsilon Rose]

Yes, unless there's a good reason.
You're using the sword of light to slaughter orphans? Yeah, you're taking a penalty for that but if you want your paladin to habitually coat every weapon he owns in poison that's fine.
Alignment should be a fluid and dynamic thing based partially on intent and partially on action and most inanimate objects, fighting techniques, magics can't have an alignment since they're missing at least one of those.
Also, lawful shouldn't be based on actual laws. A character shouldn't change alignment just because they crossed a boarder. It would make much more sense if it was called ordered and explicitly referred to the characters beliefs and personal codes.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I loosen all alignment restrictions but those of Paladins by at least one step (e.g. non-lawful to any, or good only to non-evil) and allow Paladin variants. Works for me.

I would argue against Good Assasins in that killing is non Good. Murder is Evil outright and few things get killing as far up as Neutral. So, unless you only use the death attack for paralysis or extreme non-lethal damage rather than killing, you're probably Evil or very close to it if you take the Assassin class and use it as some kind of assassin (refluffing and repurposing it could concievably make it okay to be Good, provided you ignored the BoED's "poison is Evil" stuff (I do, which isn't saying much since I don't have the book)).

[Dr.Epic]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?

For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)

Sounds neutral to me.

[Frozen_Feet]

No, I don't. That's because alignment isn't the slightest bit murky to me. I find it easy to make judgmenent calls within the given frameworks. You say a concept doesn't fit within it? Phooey, say I! You just aren't trying. You don't even have to worry about hammering square pegs into a round hole, because after few sessions of play it's usually fairly easy to say, based on IC actions, which alignment the character is actually being played as.

[Gensh]

When I DM, I generally view alignment as a guideline, rather than a straight jacket for behavior - trying to shoehorn every sentient being into one of nine personality types just seems asinine to me. I'm also a strong proponent of behavior determines alignment, rather than vice versa...

This. I tend to define things rather specifically, though in that alignment is defined by actions because having gods at all would generally imply a deontological system runs alignment. I typically don't make players suffer any consequences for choosing a specific aligned decision, but rather if they betray an organization of the opposing alignment or such. For example, rainbow servant lists "any non-evil and non-chaotic" as a prerequisite and grants powers from and related to a LG source. Since the player that wants entry tends to favor moral ambiguity, I've actually tied it to two organizations, one CN and the other LN; as long as he's in good favor with either one, he gets to progress in the class. Of course, this isn't the best method, as the most benevolent god in my homebrew setting is CE because "the end justifies the means" is evil.

[Amnestic]

I would argue against Good Assasins in that killing is non Good. Murder is Evil outright and few things get killing as far up as Neutral. So, unless you only use the death attack for paralysis or extreme non-lethal damage rather than killing, you're probably Evil or very close to it if you take the Assassin class and use it as some kind of assassin (refluffing and repurposing it could concievably make it okay to be Good, provided you ignored the BoED's "poison is Evil" stuff (I do, which isn't saying much since I don't have the book)).

So...how many Paladins/Good Clerics fall in your campaigns? Orcs, kobolds, ogres, trolls, dragons...the life of most adventurers is killing. I only named a small few of the "monstrous" sapient species...if killing them is almost universally evil, you must have a lot of evil campaigns.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, just sayin'.

[FelixG]

I would argue against Good Assasins in that killing is non Good. Murder is Evil outright and few things get killing as far up as Neutral. So, unless you only use the death attack for paralysis or extreme non-lethal damage rather than killing, you're probably Evil or very close to it if you take the Assassin class and use it as some kind of assassin (refluffing and repurposing it could concievably make it okay to be Good, provided you ignored the BoED's "poison is Evil" stuff (I do, which isn't saying much since I don't have the book)).

So assassinating a despot is Evil or non Good...ok

Say this despot was awake and the party had several hundred hapless soldiers just following orders between and their objective. Them killing those people is better than one assassin sneaking through and just slitting his throat in his sleep? Both are non Good but the guy who does it with the least loss of life is Evil? :smallconfused:


So...how many Paladins/Good Clerics fall in your campaigns? Orcs, kobolds, ogres, trolls, dragons...the life of most adventurers is killing. I only named a small few of the "monstrous" sapient species...if killing them is almost universally evil, you must have a lot of evil campaigns.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, just sayin'.

Not to mention all those non monstrous human bandits parties tend to fight along the way, they were just trying to feed their families for heavens sake! :smallbiggrin:

[Zenboras]

Hi, new to the forum here.

I always think that most things should be based on a case by case scenario, specially if the player has a really good character concept that relies on acceptable breaks from standard alignment restrictions.

Lawful bards, Paladins variants (or by deity, but only if it makes sense - a paladin of any nature deity would be a druid or ranger, not the paladin class) are things that are OK for me.

[Telonius]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?

For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)

Two-part question here; I'll take the second part first. I'd disagree that somebody against government oppression is necessarily Chaotic. You can be a very Lawful libertarian. That's actually a pretty good description of many lawyers and quite a lot of judges. (If he's against the idea of government per se, that's a different matter - but that's an Anarchist, not a Libertarian).

To the first part of the question: I tend to houserule away alignment restrictions, except where it really matters. In my games, all Deities will accept Paladins, like the Slaughter/Tyranny/Freedom model in UA, but also including all other alignments. The Paladin Code is tailored to each individual Deity, and in no case does it require the Paladin to act stupidly. Clerics also have to conform to their deity's ideals as well. Otherwise, Alignment is mostly out the window. Barbarians can be lawful, and so can Bards; Monks can be Chaotic. Alignment should be a descriptor applied based on the character's actions, not a straightjacket that determines what he can and can't do.

[ScionoftheVoid]

So assassinating a despot is Evil or non Good...ok

Say this despot was awake and the party had several hundred hapless soldiers just following orders between and their objective. Them killing those people is better than one assassin sneaking through and just slitting his throat in his sleep? Both are non Good but the guy who does it with the least loss of life is Evil? :smallconfused:

Not to mention all those non monstrous human bandits parties tend to fight along the way, they were just trying to feed their families for heavens sake! :smallbiggrin:

Killing is probably Evil. That doesn't mean you can't do it at all and maintain a Good alignment, just that it would have to be very rare and preferably in self defense or defense of innocents who have no hope of defending themselves. The assassin in your example may or may not be Evil, depending on how often they do such things. The people who kill all the soldiers are almost certainly Evil, however. The end does not justify the means. There are Good ways to deal with that situation, they just tend to be harder in the short term, where Evil tends to be harder in the long term (it's very hard to get past a despot's defences and get them to stand down non-lethally, but it's also very hard to gain trust or respect when you kill people for a living).


So...how many Paladins/Good Clerics fall in your campaigns? Orcs, kobolds, ogres, trolls, dragons...the life of most adventurers is killing. I only named a small few of the "monstrous" sapient species...if killing them is almost universally evil, you must have a lot of evil campaigns.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, just sayin'.

So far, no Paladins or Good Clerics have fallen in my campaigns. There has never been a Good Paladin to begin with and the only Good Cleric died before he could do much Evil. He went round with the rest of the party as damage control (he may have done more Good if they didn't outnumber him and have no reason not to kill him if he got in their way and more Evil if he hadn't strapped himself to the party's stupid and insane Barbarian Warlock for the extra mobility). I'm a fairly new DM and my players vastly prefer Evil characters even before the fact that a great many classic adventuring parties would be considered Evil in my games. Someone does not necessarily deserve death just because they ping on Detect Evil. If it has a mind it can change alignment, if it doesn't it doesn't have an alignment to begin with. Good characters are expected to use non-lethal means (either through combat or diplomacy) for as long as possible, "respect for life" is Good's thing, destroying or worsening it is Evil's.

I also think you're undervaluing the number of people who have soley diplomatic games, or games where characters regularly take and use BoED vows, but I don't tend to run or play those (not sure my players would cooperate and the few DMs here apart from me run combat-heavy classic stuff (veterans of older editions, I'm fairly sure) and with *shudder*critical fumble and critical hit tables*shudder*).

But yes, my campaigns feature almost universally Evil characters. My players wouldn't have it any other way. If other things work for you, that's fine. Thanks for respecting my group's playstyle (even if you wouldn't enjoy it).

[Kantolin]

I almost always allow them to be tweaked 'up'. I have no problems with a CG character being a good incarnate, with a LG bard, with a NG Hexblade.

I have more problems with an evil healer, for example, but I'm sure an explanation could be crafted that makes it make sense, in which I wouldn't mind.

I think the only thing I really enforce is clerics being within one step of their diety. Then again, I've never been in a situation where someone's asked me to be one that wasn't. I am okay with, say, a half-orc cleric of Moradin, provided there's a neat explanation along with it ^_^

[Haarkla]

Say a character as concepualized and roleplayed does not fit into the alignment system. Would you waive alignment restrictions on feats, spells, prestige classes, etc as long as they fit the character's concept and roleplay?
I think prohibiting Lawful bards is one of the stupidest rules in D&D. I am also generally ok with lawful barbarians and neutral monks.

I would require Druid with a restricted alignment to give up some of his other powers in return, as alignment restrictions help balance that class, and Druids are very powerful.

I find chaotic monks a bit iffy, and would require a good reason to allow one in the game.

Only with Paladins am I strict about alignment restrictions. (But even then I might allow a NG one.)




For example, if a character was opposed to government oppression and libertarian in nature(thus chaotic,) but was also terribly organized to the level of OCD, and had a very strict personal honor code which was never violated(thus lawful.)[/QUOTE]
Clearly this character is Lawful. He has a strict honour code and is highly organised. So what if he disagrees with the governments specific legal code, he follows a very strict code of his own.

[soir8]

In the game I'm currently running, I've decided that my players don't have an alignment until they demonstrate one, and even then I keep track of it, not them. For example, the Wizard//Druid never uses evil spells, does a lot of healing, and always tries for a peaceful solution to conflict, so he's down in my notes as being NG. If the players decide to take levels in a class with alignment restrictions, I'll then assume their alignment to comply with those restrictions until they do something to suggest otherwise. It's been a good system so far, as instead of picking an alignment just for the classes they want to play, they have to work towards earning that alignment. It feels very organic :)

[Amnestic]

I find chaotic monks a bit iffy, and would require a good reason to allow one in the game.


Amusingly perhaps, Chaotic Monk is a variant released in Dragon Mag (and is better than the Lawful Monk, iirc, though that's not terribly hard ;p)



But yes, my campaigns feature almost universally Evil characters. My players wouldn't have it any other way. If other things work for you, that's fine. Thanks for respecting my group's playstyle (even if you wouldn't enjoy it).


Got nothing against Evil campaigns, and I'm sure I'd quite enjoy them if I played them. I disagree, respectfully, with your views on what constitutes an Evil action but if it works for you and your group enjoys it, hey, more power to you.

And while, yes, I may underestimate the number of Diplomacy-centred D&D games (again, not exactly a game I'd have a problem with, would probably quite enjoy it in fact), I still think the killy-killy stabby-stabby ones are the more popular/prevalent. :smalltongue:

[NNescio]

I think prohibiting Lawful bards is one of the stupidest rules in D&D. ...


Especially considering that most real-life bards in history are probably somewhere west of Neutral. Heck, bards were pretty much synonymous with "tradition".

[TOZ]

Well, since I've dropped alignment from my games, that makes my answer a resounding 'YES'. :)

[Kyberwulf]

I laughed soo hard when i read .. "Good Assassin"

You can't be a good assassin... lol... unless you mean good, as in you really well at killing people.
They Take MONEY to kill someone. That is What they do. That is NOT a good act. i can see..playing a NON-good Assassin.

[Ravens_cry]

Technically not all D&D is like this, but what is most D&D, especially early levels and dungeon crawls? You are going to kill sentient creatures for money. Maybe you are paid directly, maybe you keep a share of the loot, but a lot of it is the same thing.
Personally, I do it on a case by case basis. I am less inclined if you simply want to play this class, but can't because it is a non-evil party or because some combination of rules wouldn't work otherwise. I am more so if your back story and actions have shown you would fit into this class and this alignment.

[PollyOliver]

I laughed soo hard when i read .. "Good Assassin"

You can't be a good assassin... lol... unless you mean good, as in you really well at killing people.
They Take MONEY to kill someone. That is What they do. That is NOT a good act. i can see..playing a NON-good Assassin.

Well, if taking money to kill hordes of low level soldiers in defense of a city of mostly civilians can be a non-evil or even good act, why should taking monkey to take out their leaders to halt their advance be worse? There's less loss of life involved, and less innocent loss of life involved. Even if you play in a cardboard cut-out setting where the army of mooks is made of "always evil" monsters, there's still less killing. So how is offing the enemy general in his tent while he's sleeping, a classic example of assassination, worse than waiting for the army to finish its march on a city full of innocents and children and having a pitched battle there where thousands on both sides are killed (and risking losing)? When diplomacy has failed and death is a near-given, what's inherently worse about being stealthy and cutting the number of deaths down from thousands to a couple?

In the real world I wouldn't consider either thing to be a good act, but given that the foundation of most of D&D is that when the diplomacy breaks down (or if you suck at or are too impatient for diplomacy) the killing commences even on the part of good characters, I see no reason why you couldn't be a good "assassin" as long as the paladin is also getting paid to kill things. Maybe it's not a "good" option in and of itself, but it's a "lesser of evils" option, which I think is perfectly consistent with a good character.

[big teej]

if I may postulate for a moment.

assasin =/= Assassin.

think about this for a moment.

an assassin is someone who, for political or ideological reasons, has chosen to kill a highly known/powerful public figure, having decided that violence is the most effecient means to their end.

an assassin was likely unpayed for the killing.

an Assasin, on the other hand, as defined in the DMG
is a person who was willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to qualify for the class, for them, killing is almost like a hobby, they're getting payed to do something they (debatebly) enjoy. an Assassin by definition is evil, and is payed for his work.


now I'm sure somebody is going to come in and nitpick about my wording, but unless you start miscontruing what I say on purpose or something, I feel my point stands.

to summarize, assassinating a -tyrant/political/religious/whatever figure does NOT make you an Assassin as per the class

killing someone for no other reason than to become one, and then being willing to kill people for a living does.



and now, to offer a response from a completely seperate school of thought.

what's the difference between a 'good' assassin and a 'bad' assassin?

good assassins are known as BOUNTY HUNTERS
bad assassins are known as (you guessed it) ASSASSINS.

[Ravens_cry]

"I'm not a crazed gunman, I'm an assassin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyNuriXG3BQ). Well, the difference being one is is job and the other's mental sickness."

[John Campbell]

We've abolished alignment entirely. It serves no useful purpose; it only starts arguments. Classes that need guidelines for conduct - like clerics, paladins, druids - have more useful and specific ones. Classes that don't, don't. Neither are helped by the unproductive combination of uselessly vague and pointlessly restrictive that the standard alignment system represents.

[FelixG]

if I may postulate for a moment.

an Assasin, on the other hand, as defined in the DMG
is a person who was willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to qualify for the class, for them, killing is almost like a hobby, they're getting payed to do something they (debatebly) enjoy. an Assassin by definition is evil, and is payed for his work.

and now, to offer a response from a completely seperate school of thought.

what's the difference between a 'good' assassin and a 'bad' assassin?

good assassins are known as BOUNTY HUNTERS
bad assassins are known as (you guessed it) ASSASSINS.

Say there is a good person, generally, may be chaotic, who knows...He enjoys what he does, he kills those who stand in the way of freedom and good kingdoms, the evil wizard in his tower raising an undead army, that orc warlord preparing to kill all who are not green, that sort of thing.

He deliberately enjoys this act, its what hes good at, its what he knows and he has fun with it! Now he discovers he can be an Assassin and get PAYED to do these deeds, does he suddenly become evil for this? I wouldn't think so. He may have to perform a SINGLE evil act, maybe, when the target is chosen for his initiation, but that part isnt clearly defined either. Your "one person for no other reason than to become an assassin" doesnt have to be jo off the street, it could be that evil wizard or orc warlord, you are just doing it to prove you are a good enough.

Also on your second line of thought, Gredo and Boba/Jango were Bounty Hunters and evil. Not Assassins! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: The post above mine reminds me of something very important also. An Assassin cant fall from being an assassin, you could dip down to evil take the class and then do all altruistic things and be LG, its unlikely but its a possibility, and you dont loose any class abilities.

[TOZ]

We've abolished alignment entirely. It serves no useful purpose; it only starts arguments. Classes that need guidelines for conduct - like clerics, paladins, druids - have more useful and specific ones. Classes that don't, don't. Neither are helped by the unproductive combination of uselessly vague and pointlessly restrictive that the standard alignment system represents.

Well said, good sir. You have earned the right to join me at my court in Camelot. :smallwink:

[Dienekes]

Say there is a good person, generally, may be chaotic, who knows...He enjoys what he does, he kills those who stand in the way of freedom and good kingdoms, the evil wizard in his tower raising an undead army, that orc warlord preparing to kill all who are not green, that sort of thing.

So he murders those who disagree with him. Yeah, I tend to find that evil. Though to be fair, I generally find the random genocide most dnd parties do on a daily basis evil as well.

Killing an unarmed civilian is evil, to me anyway. You don't just get the right to go murdering people because they're varying degrees of naughty. Now, I won't say anything against self defense when it comes up. But if you take the life of others into your hands you are a murderer plain and simple, and should be judged as such.


Also on your second line of thought, Gredo and Boba/Jango were Bounty Hunters and evil. Not Assassins! :smallbiggrin:

SW bounty hunters have a tendency to act exactly like assassins though.

[big teej]

Say there is a good person, generally, may be chaotic, who knows...He enjoys what he does, he kills those who stand in the way of freedom and good kingdoms, the evil wizard in his tower raising an undead army, that orc warlord preparing to kill all who are not green, that sort of thing.

He deliberately enjoys this act, its what hes good at, its what he knows and he has fun with it! Now he discovers he can be an Assassin and get PAYED to do these deeds, does he suddenly become evil for this? I wouldn't think so. He may have to perform a SINGLE evil act, maybe, when the target is chosen for his initiation, but that part isnt clearly defined either. Your "one person for no other reason than to become an assassin" doesnt have to be jo off the street, it could be that evil wizard or orc warlord, you are just doing it to prove you are a good enough.

Also on your second line of thought, Gredo and Boba/Jango were Bounty Hunters and evil. Not Assassins! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: The post above mine reminds me of something very important also. An Assassin cant fall from being an assassin, you could dip down to evil take the class and then do all altruistic things and be LG, its unlikely but its a possibility, and you dont loose any class abilities.

to be honest, as defined, the individual described pings as 'evil' to me.

-pre editing-

it is almost 4 am here, and I feel it best to not comment beyond this at this time.

also, fair point on the bounty hunters, it was merely somethin that occured to me whilst typing my actual point that I felt needed to be put forth to discussion, I stand behind the first point. the second was musings.

at this point I take my own advice about typing at 3am and bid you all goodnight.

[NNescio]

Say there is a good person, generally, may be chaotic, who knows...He enjoys what he does, he kills those who stand in the way of freedom and good kingdoms, the evil wizard in his tower raising an undead army, that orc warlord preparing to kill all who are not green, that sort of thing.

He deliberately enjoys this act, its what hes good at, its what he knows and he has fun with it! Now he discovers he can be an Assassin and get PAYED to do these deeds, does he suddenly become evil for this? I wouldn't think so. He may have to perform a SINGLE evil act, maybe, when the target is chosen for his initiation, but that part isnt clearly defined either. Your "one person for no other reason than to become an assassin" doesnt have to be jo off the street, it could be that evil wizard or orc warlord, you are just doing it to prove you are a good enough.

Also on your second line of thought, Gredo and Boba/Jango were Bounty Hunters and evil. Not Assassins! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: The post above mine reminds me of something very important also. An Assassin cant fall from being an assassin, you could dip down to evil take the class and then do all altruistic things and be LG, its unlikely but its a possibility, and you dont loose any class abilities.

Honestly, I can't see how a person who actively enjoys killing can be good. Non-evil, maybe, but good is right out.

And no, killing Evil McWizardington or Orcface Skullcrusher for the sole reason of joining Murder Inc, or to prove that you are good enough to kill people -- that is definitely not a good act. Heck, it screams "Evil" in 200-foot-tall flaming letters.

It doesn't matter even if the people who are killed are evil. Good people don't kill people for the sake of killing people. They kill people because those people present a clear and active threat to other people, and cannot be reasonably stopped by any other means. They kill in order to protect. They do not kill sentient, sapient beings for personal enjoyment, and neither do they kill just to prove something.

[Epsilon Rose]

First, I agree there's a huge difference between assassin and Assassin.
The first is someone who attempts (successfully or otherwise) to kill an important figure no other details are relevant and this could be an act of any alignment (back stabbing chancellor offing the prince? assassin. Holy paladin slaying the Evil lich king? Also an assassin.)
The second is someone who kills people for money and the exact nature of the target is only relevant in deciding how much money. I would argue this person is True neutral to lawful neutral, since they aren't making any decisions regarding there target and simply following a set of universal rules. If they can actually hold to that they're no more evil or good than a bullet and all morality falls on their employers.
Realistically very few Assassins would be able to remain quite that detached and would probably end up filtering their clients to some degree. While this certainly makes it easier to be evil (since some of the responsibility for your actions is now yours) it could also shift you towards good. Allow me to give an example.
Let's say a country is run by an evil despot with a large standing army and fairly strict laws. The people, quite reasonably, want to rebel but it would be impossible for them to support an army of their own and even if they could the despot would be able to find out about it and crush them before they could gather enough trained troops and equipment. On the other hand hiring an assassin for a small number of jobs would be much cheaper and less likely to draw the despots notice until it's to late. Without that option they would most likely need to turn to terrorist tactics. If an Assassin prefers taking these kinds of clients he is 1) helping to enforce the will of the people, and 2) helping to keep the suicide bomber brand of terrorism to a minimum and I would classify such actions and the person who performs them as more on the side of good.

[Malimar]

Because I am insane, I offer a homebrew feat that allows a character to take levels in that class even if their alignment is one step wrong. Classes with specific behavior restrictions (paladins, clerics, druids) still need to adhere in practice to their class's code of conduct.

Nobody has ever taken this feat, and I don't really expect anybody to in the future, but it's there if they want it.

[FelixG]

Honestly, I can't see how a person who actively enjoys killing can be good. Non-evil, maybe, but good is right out.

And no, killing Evil McWizardington or Orcface Skullcrusher for the sole reason of joining Murder Inc, or to prove that you are good enough to kill people -- that is definitely not a good act. Heck, it screams "Evil" in 200-foot-tall flaming letters.

It doesn't matter even if the people who are killed are evil. Good people don't kill people for the sake of killing people. They kill people because those people present a clear and active threat to other people, and cannot be reasonably stopped by any other means. They kill in order to protect. They do not kill sentient, sapient beings for personal enjoyment, and neither do they kill just to prove something.

They may not seem good, but there is nothing in alignment that says Killing is evil. Murder maybe but not killing, or there would be no paladins. A paladin can LOVE to kill evil so much he needs to change his pants after killing orcface skullcrusher but he is still LG, he has done nothing Evil.

And in your game I suppose the players only loot the bodies of those they just killed to cover their own costs, or do they make a profit from what they do?

How is a person who slips in and kills a single bandit leader then gets payed for it afterward (or however) any worse than the group who slaughters a patrol of bandit then strips them and sells all their possessions?

[NNescio]

They may not seem good, but there is nothing in alignment that says Killing is evil. Murder maybe but not killing, or there would be no paladins. ...

Actually, yes.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Now, I'm not saying that killing is necessarily evil, but doing so for the sake of killing (and personal enjoyment) is definitely so.



And in your game I suppose the players only loot the bodies of those they just killed to cover their own costs, or do they make a profit from what they do?

How is a person who slips in and kills a single bandit leader then gets payed for it afterward (or however) any worse than the group who slaughters a patrol of bandit then strips them and sells all their possessions?

I'm usually reluctant to use this word, but that's an absolute strawman. I have mentioned nothing whatsoever about looting or personal gain.


It doesn't matter even if the people who are killed are evil. Good people don't kill people for the sake of killing people. They kill people because those people present a clear and active threat to other people, and cannot be reasonably stopped by any other means. They kill in order to protect. They do not kill sentient, sapient beings for personal enjoyment, and neither do they kill just to prove something.

Emphasis mine.

A person who "slips in and kills a single bandit leader then gets payed(sic) for it afterwards" may not necessarily be evil. A group "who slaughters a patrol of bandit(sic) then strips them and sells all their possessions" are also not necessarily evil. (In fact, both groups of people are often also good in most campaigns.) The assassin who killed the bandit leader because he loves killing and wants to prove himself to the the local Murder Inc? Evil. The raving warband which killed the bandits for sport and to prove that their group are the biggest, baddest group in the field? Evil.

Sounds familiar?


He deliberately enjoys this act, its what hes good at, its what he knows and he has fun with it! Now he discovers he can be an Assassin and get PAYED to do these deeds, does he suddenly become evil for this? I wouldn't think so. He may have to perform a SINGLE evil act, maybe, when the target is chosen for his initiation, but that part isnt clearly defined either. Your "one person for no other reason than to become an assassin" doesnt have to be jo off the street, it could be that evil wizard or orc warlord, you are just doing it to prove you are a good enough.

That's my point, and I reiterate:


I'm not saying that killing is necessarily evil, but doing so for the sake of killing (and personal enjoyment) is definitely so.

[Veyr]

Everyone suggesting a Good Assassin would also waive the idiotic special requirement on account of being idiotic.

[Curmudgeon]

Everyone suggesting a Good Assassin would also waive the idiotic special requirement on account of being idiotic.
"Idiotic"? What other mechanism would you suggest for proving that you've got what it takes to plan and execute assassinations?

[Volthawk]

"Idiotic"? What other mechanism would you suggest for proving that you've got what it takes to plan and execute assassinations?

See, I don't like the "for no other reason than to join the assassins", since in my mind assassins kill because they're paid to, not just for the hell of it, which the pre-requisite seems to encourage.

[Caustic Soda]

I don't really see a reason that having the "must kill someone to join" requirement is necessarily idiotic. It's not really any different from the concept of "made men" in the mob. It does presuppose the existence of a crminal organizatino that can provide training in assassination, which might be overly specific for a given campaign setting. Then again, you don't need to be an Assasin in order to assassinate people. A Wizard using Scry-N-Die is probably more effective, as are other builds people might come up with.

Having said all that, I agree with the sentiment that for classes where behavior restrictions are appropriate, it is more useful to give a specific code than to rely on alignment. As written, alignment depends entirely upon the interpretation of the players and GM. For example, what does "respect for life" imply? It could imply that you should avoid killing at all costs, that you should kill only to save more lives than you take, that you should treat others nicely, or any number of other things. If your group has a shared understanding of what alignment means in specific situations, then great, no problems there. But there is no guarantee that this will be the case, so IMO alignment tends to be largely meaningless at best.

[PollyOliver]

Yeah, there's a difference between "assassin" (someone who sneakily kills people and gets paid, but may have other reasons) and "Assassin" as strictly defined in the DMG. To kill someone for no other reason than to join would be a pretty large evil act (though in the context of five to ten levels of otherwise exemplary good acts, would not necessarily make a non-good character, depending on the motivation). But I'm talking about using the mechanics of the class--sneak in, possibly with spells, study your target, off them without showing yourself, and sneak out--as the basis for a class a good character could be a member of; if you toss the alignment restriction, you're probably also tossing the special requirement.

I don't know that the requirement is necessarily idiotic, just idiotic as strictly written. If you say "oh, I want to join the assassins, I'm just gonna kill that random guy over there" and then they show up to recruit you ala Elder Scrolls...we'll that's pretty weak. But if you track them down and it's your initiation test, that could make a lot of sense. Why bother admitting someone to the capital-A evil Assassins if they're just going to balk on their first hit after you've wasted all that time training them?

[Callista]

A character doesn't have to be a stereotype of an alignment in order to fit into the system. If someone is truly uncategorizable, I will simply start him at true neutral and the player can switch him if he drifts off that. Most seemingly uncategorizable characters are some flavor of neutral anyhow.

And yeah, I waive the "Must kill someone" Assassin requirement and just require that the person must have been on a dangerous solo mission. There's nothing about the class that makes it suitable only for evil characters; so why restrict it? The more choices the better. Choices are 3.5's strength.

I can only imagine that maybe the Assassin requirement was modeled after the old Mafia requirement to kill someone to get in...

[Swooper]

Do I waive alignment resrictions? No, I waive alignments.

[Curmudgeon]

See, I don't like the "for no other reason than to join the assassins", since in my mind assassins kill because they're paid to, not just for the hell of it, which the pre-requisite seems to encourage.
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.
I can see how you might read it that way, but you're adding something that's not in the requirements. "Because it's my initiation test" is the way I'd read that entry requirement, as it's specifically about joining the organization. Someone's getting paid; it's just not you (yet) because you won't receive membership benefits until you pass the test.

[Volthawk]

I can see how you might read it that way, but you're adding something that's not in the requirements. "Because it's my initiation test" is the way I'd read that entry requirement, as it's specifically about joining the organization. Someone's getting paid; it's just not you (yet) because you won't receive membership benefits until you pass the test.

Ah, I think in my mind, I mixed together the Assassin and Pyrokeneticist pre-reqs together. Oops :smallredface:.

[Epsilon Rose]

"Idiotic"? What other mechanism would you suggest for proving that you've got what it takes to plan and execute assassinations?

Assassinate an actual target, rather than joe schmo off the street. Possibly with the additional stipulation that you not get caught.

[Amnestic]

"Idiotic"? What other mechanism would you suggest for proving that you've got what it takes to plan and execute assassinations?

The idea that all assassins groups have the exact same qualification ("kill someone to join us") is idiotic. There is little else to say. A simple trial - one which does not result in an actual death - would be more than sufficient and indeed easier to evaluate since the assassins could easily watch their every move.

That you need to join an assassin's group as a requirement of the PrC is also idiotic. I shall quote the Spymaster PrC as a direct mirror (for it is rogue-ish in nature) - it has no group requirements despite arguably being more tied to groups since spies generally report to a higher up. Assassins are potentially more capable of acting as independent agents, yet they are tied to a group. Stupid.

[Curmudgeon]

Assassinate an actual target, rather than joe schmo off the street.
What makes you think it's "joe schmo off the street". It's someone that will serve as an entry ticket to the organization. How is the guild going to know that you've killed "joe schmo off the street" anyway? :smallconfused:

No, it's got to be a kill that will serve as an entry test. The rules don't specify this, but I always assumed the guild was picking the person you needed to kill to join the Assassins.

[Veyr]

The association of the mechanical class with the fluffed organization that probably wouldn't even otherwise exist in most settings is what is "idiotic".

[navar100]

To answer the second part of the OP: this is something of a problem when you look too deeply into alignments. You can have a character who believes freedom is the ultimate ideal to strive for, but believes in strict adherence to law and order as the mechanism by which the optimal level of freedom can be attained for everyone. I've never really quite known how to class that (I've played it before) except shrug, split the difference, and call it neutral. Fortunately, in an actually feudal and medieval world this doesn't really come up, but in other settings it's makes things complicated if alignment really matters, especially with an inexperienced DM or a small sample size of actions.

Lawful Good.

Freedom != no government

A Lawful Good person wants the laws to protect the freedom. The laws set rules for people interacting with people and for the government itself. It limits the powers the government has, trying for as little interference into the daily lives of its citizens as possible.

[navar100]

No, I don't. That's because alignment isn't the slightest bit murky to me. I find it easy to make judgmenent calls within the given frameworks. You say a concept doesn't fit within it? Phooey, say I! You just aren't trying. You don't even have to worry about hammering square pegs into a round hole, because after few sessions of play it's usually fairly easy to say, based on IC actions, which alignment the character is actually being played as.

Exactly. Alignment does not dictate behavior. Behavior dicates alignment.

[Callista]

Hmm, yeah, I actually agree with that. Believing in the freedom to make one's own choices is not incompatible with LG; many LG individuals would agree with the statement that, "Laws should protect the individual's freedom to make decisions that do not infringe on others' rights."

But if there were more emphasis on the freedom aspect, then I would say NG, because that person is seeing freedom as a goal in itself and using the laws to protect it--as would be expected of someone who is NG and not picky about what methods he uses to ensure that everyone benefits.

Depends on the personality.

[Curmudgeon]

The association of the mechanical class with the fluffed organization that probably wouldn't even otherwise exist in most settings is what is "idiotic".
I guess you've got a lot of complaints about D&D in general, then. There's a huge amount of "fluff" in the various supplements, and requirements that tie the mechanics of classes and feats to them.

You're really going to want to stay away from Champions of Valor. Most of the feats in that book, and all of the substitution levels, have something like "member of the <whatever> order" as prerequisites.
Prerequisites: Paladin 4th of Azuth or Mystra, or ranger 4th of Mystra; member of the Knights of the Mystic Fire (see page 102), the Order of the Shooting Star (see Knights of the Mystic Fire, page 102), or the Swords of the High One (see page 104). How can you stand it? :smallwink:

[Veyr]

I don't: I waive them. I consider everything fluff-related that WotC ever wrote to be suggestions at best. Some of it's very good, most of it's very bad.

[navar100]

Killing is probably Evil. That doesn't mean you can't do it at all and maintain a Good alignment, just that it would have to be very rare and preferably in self defense or defense of innocents who have no hope of defending themselves. The assassin in your example may or may not be Evil, depending on how often they do such things. The people who kill all the soldiers are almost certainly Evil, however. The end does not justify the means. There are Good ways to deal with that situation, they just tend to be harder in the short term, where Evil tends to be harder in the long term (it's very hard to get past a despot's defences and get them to stand down non-lethally, but it's also very hard to gain trust or respect when you kill people for a living).

Killing != Evil

It is an unaligned act. The why of the killing makes all the difference. The how of the killing could be aligned as well, but it's debatable such as the use of poison. The motive for the killing itself, though, is the primary factor. Good does value life, but Good is capable of valuing things more than life. Evil wins by trying to make Good forget that.

[PollyOliver]

In D&D, in my mind, killing in and of itself is generally neutral, maybe leaning evil, but mitigating circumstances can push it in just about any direction. For example, execution of lawfully and fairly convicted criminals sentenced to die (especially in a society without the resources for imprisonment/reform on a large scale) = lawful. Killing a murderer who's about to kill an innocent = good or neutral depending on the setup and the actual motivation of the character, and maybe chaotic if capture and trial might have been an option but you offed him because you don't have faith in the law. Killing a sentient being who hasn't committed a serious crime or act of evil and isn't in the act of committing one = almost always evil, though one evil act does not necessarily an evil character make. Etc.

Though obviously on this front just about every group has their own standards, ranging from "any kill = evil but can be redeemed to neutral by mitigating circumstance" to "killing always evil puppies = good". I guess as long as your group has a consistent standard that everyone likes, it works out fine.

[Kyberwulf]

Well said, good sir. You have earned the right to join me at my court in Camelot. :smallwink:

"Camelot, 'tis a silly place."

People seem to confuse Assassin (the Vocation), with Assassin (the politcal word used to discribe the killing an individual on some importance). Killing people for the Sole purpose of getting paid to, is an evil act. Killing someone for who is against your political views, is also an evil act. Killing someone cause your think aliens are taking over the world, and you think it that act will save the world? Murky.

The Assassin's Requirement to kill to get into "Muder Inc." is to prove a bunch of things. Your willing to do what you have to to get the job done. To Bloody the hands so Murder Inc can have something on the character, in case he should try get out of Murder Inc.

If you go out to stop bands of Highwaymen or bandits, and you find your sole recourse is to kill them. Then you my friend are neutral at best, most definatly on the downfall to evil. Good characters try find ways to subdue and captire the criminals. If you find that you have a "Take no Prisoners" Rule.... that is not an good rule. If you try to argue, that having prisoners would slow you down, that means you are trying to justify your evil actions. Remembe, trying to justify your actions, means a guilty mind. Killing, is hardly a "good" act. In almost all Forms of media, when the good guy has the bad guy under his sword/gun/whatever. He ends up turning aways from killing. He recognizes that it would be wrong. Now, when the villian goes for his sword/gun/whatever and Forces the Hero to defend himself. Then its not an evil act....

Personally I think Aligment isn't that hard. Where most people have problems is, they METAgame. Players have a tendancy to have a hard time seperating Themselves from the characters. As in, This character is me. If he does evil atrocies acts, then I am doing evil and atrocies acts. Thus, they try to justify the actions of the PC to the point of excess, i.e. The Bandits are evil, they give us NO other recourse, but to kill them! TAKE NO PRISONERS!!!!..... and not even given the Bandits the oppertunity to give up. In effect, they are forceing the Bandits to defend themselves.

[Epsilon Rose]

If you try to argue, that having prisoners would slow you down, that means you are trying to justify your evil actions. Remembe, trying to justify your actions, means a guilty mind.
NO, just no. Trying to justify yourself do someone who's demanding justification does not mean you are guilty. If you spend an inordinate amount of time justifying you self or start offering explenations when no one asked or cared then you probably have a guilty mind but defending yourself does not make you guilty.


Killing, is hardly a "good" act. In almost all Forms of media, when the good guy has the bad guy under his sword/gun/whatever. He ends up turning aways from killing. He recognizes that it would be wrong. Now, when the villian goes for his sword/gun/whatever and Forces the Hero to defend himself. Then its not an evil act....
That is a very short sighted view of things and is internally inconsistent. First it leads to things like Batman and the Joker. That is Batman beats the Joker to within an inch of his life and throws him into Arkham, then the Joker recovers and escapes to kill a bunch of people. The fact that Batman continues to do this even when it's been proven to not work is NOT a good thing. He's basically saying that his conscience is more important than all the people the Joker is inevitably going to kill.
The second part is just patently silly if you look at it in any objective way. You're saying it's ok to kill the guy not because he destroyed your home town, tried to summon an elder evil, regularly eats babies, and just spent the last 30 minutes trying to kill you but because he spat on your offer of surrender? I'm not sure if that's incredible hubris or just psychosis.

[Kyberwulf]

Batman/joker example: Thats not his good/evil/ Axis coming into play. That's his Lawful/Chaotic Axis. He doesn't Kill the joker... cause then, he would be taking the law into his own hands. Batman does not see himself as a Judge. He puts his trust into the law enforment angiencies. That is part of the draw of batman, not because he is good or evil. But because he is foreced to Hold himself to an ideal postion. Or get lost in the grey void between Law and Choas. The Fact that he upholds the law, is what seperates him from a hero(or Anti-Hero if you perfer that term.) like The Punisher.

As to the second part. I am not saying its cause he "spits" on him. Its because the Big Bad guys FORCES the Hero to kill him, by MAKING the Hero defend himself. Not because he spits on him. Killing in protection of yourself, and others is not an evil act. Killing cause the Character will do an evil act, is a justifaction. If you think that killing EVERY criminal is a good act, then i would think your more Lawful Evil.

Becoming a Judge, Jury, and executioner is decidedly, not a "good" act. Its neutral.. at best.

[LordBlades]

In my group we've gotten rid of alignment restrictions. We think classes and mechanical abilities are just building blocks for a character concept. If it makes sense for your character builds to have Death Attack and Poison Use, I see no reason why that char couldn't unless he killed somebody on purpose and was evil.

[Epsilon Rose]

Batman/joker example: Thats not his good/evil/ Axis coming into play. That's his Lawful/Chaotic Axis. He doesn't Kill the joker... cause then, he would be taking the law into his own hands. Batman does not see himself as a Judge. He puts his trust into the law enforment angiencies. That is part of the draw of batman, not because he is good or evil. But because he is foreced to Hold himself to an ideal postion. Or get lost in the grey void between Law and Choas. The Fact that he upholds the law, is what seperates him from a hero(or Anti-Hero if you perfer that term.) like The Punisher.
The fact that he's more defined my law/chaos than good/evil does not absolve him of responsibility. He's been shown objectively time and again that Arkham cannot hold the Joker and that the Joker will kill people.


As to the second part. I am not saying its cause he "spits" on him. Its because the Big Bad guys FORCES the Hero to kill him, by MAKING the Hero defend himself. Not because he spits on him. Killing in protection of yourself, and others is not an evil act. Killing cause the Character will do an evil act, is a justifaction. If you think that killing EVERY criminal is a good act, then i would think your more Lawful Evil.
See the thing is he's not "Forcing" the hero to "defend him self" (meaning kill him). There's nothing stopping him from just knocking the guy out. Waiting for him to go for the weapon AGAIN is the kind of justification you seem to be against, except it's worse because it's not based on reality; unlike justifying killing the Joker by saying he's killed hundreds and will kill hundreds more waiting for the villain to go for the gun puts MORE people in danger and serves no purpose but to ease your guilt.
Just because it's an excepted trope in fiction does not mean it is an example of rational action.

[Frozen_Feet]

The fact that he's more defined my law/chaos than good/evil does not absolve him of responsibility. He's been shown objectively time and again that Arkham cannot hold the Joker and that the Joker will kill people.


So why doesn't someone else kill Joker?

Really, tell me. Batman always brings him in, and they have the option to do whatever they want with him. Batman's lawful responsibility ends there.

The stupidity that is Joker's extended existence is not, in any way, fault of Batman. The way Joker gets out, every time, undermines Batsy's acts, yes, but that's due to circumstances completely outside of his power to change.

Batman's "technical pacifism" is in the right, and he's doing all he can within the framework of his Lawful alignment and psyche to stop Joker. It's the idiocy of DC universe and comic book industry that's keeping Joker alive. In any remotely realistic scenario, Joker would've been either executed, or so firmly sedated and under lock and key that the chances of him escaping are nill.

[Kyberwulf]

Thats exactly my point. Its not BATMAN's responsiblity, to pass judgement. Its the Courts, the jury's responsibility. The fact that THEY don't convict him, and exacute him, is what i don't get. Even if he is Certifiably Insane.

In my example, the Big bad guy waits for the hero to turn his back. Then attempts to Kill the hero. Its a split second, the hero reacts. Your argument, is based on the idea of vengance.

[PollyOliver]

Thats exactly my point. Its not BATMAN's responsiblity, to pass judgement. Its the Courts, the jury's responsibility. The fact that THEY don't convict him, and exacute him, is what i don't get. Even if he is Certifiably Insane.

That's more a lawful view than a good view, IMO.

[Veyr]

Pretty sure it's illegal in every US state to execute insane criminals. Which is not to say they couldn't keep him very locked-up and heavily drugged.

[Epsilon Rose]

In my example, the Big bad guy waits for the hero to turn his back. Then attempts to Kill the hero. Its a split second, the hero reacts. Your argument, is based on the idea of vengance.

Justice, not vengeance. There's a difference. Acting for justice requires one to base there actions on what's happening to others while vengeance is in retaliation to personal grievances.

In other words, it would be just to kill him for going around and wiping out towns while dining on babies and vengeance to kill him for wronging you specifically. By that definition your hero is acting in vengeance since an attack on society was not enough to move him to murder but a personal attack was.

[Firechanter]

Minor thread hijacking:

Suppose a player wants to make a character that largely functions like an Assassin (especially the spells), but is available to Good characters without houserule-waiving alignment restrictions. What class/PrC could they use?

And besides, my two cents on the assassin as written:
The entry req "Must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins" automatically results in an Evil alignment in my book, because it demands a decidedly Evil act. So waiving the alignment restriction wouldn't do anything if you didn't also waive this entry requirement.

[Kyberwulf]

Your trying to justify your acts, which makes it a matter of Law vs, chaos. The fact that he did those things.. Yes, Your Example villian is evil. In my scenario. Heros recognize the fact that its not his right to Judge the Villian. Where as yours decieds he has the right to. In my expample, he is Lawful, maybe Neutral. In yours Chaotic, maybe Neutral. After that, the question is intentions.

Does your hero kill the helpless character? Does he take enjoyment out of the act of killing? Does the end justify the means?

It sounds to me, that your a neutral person on the grounds of Good vs. Evil. But have compuntions on the Lawful Vs. Chaos line.

Allright, since you did it to me. Let me do it to you. The Big Bad Evil gy is a bandit leader. Doesn't kill his victums, just beats them around. Threatens, Only kills to escape the law. Nothing as Dramatic as you put forth. All of sudden YOUR example hero comes in... judges him guilty.. and proceeds to exacute him. Oh, your guy is still considered good... cause he did it for "the greater good."

[PollyOliver]

Minor thread hijacking:

Suppose a player wants to make a character that largely functions like an Assassin (especially the spells), but is available to Good characters without houserule-waiving alignment restrictions. What class/PrC could they use?

Slayer of Domiel from BoED. Sneak attack instead of death attack, and their version of death attack sucks, but that's pretty much what you're looking for.

[Moriato]

Slayer of Domiel from BoED. Sneak attack instead of death attack, and their version of death attack sucks, but that's pretty much what you're looking for.

Yeah, it does kind of suck. Alternatively he could use The Avenger! (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) It was an April Fools joke that WotC put out a few years back but there's really no reason it wont work. It's a perfectly viable PRC. It's just an assassin with the "any evil" requirement replaced with "any non-chaotic", which is really what it should have been in the first place. Oh, and a little typo on their spells known list. I'm sure you'll figure that one out. Guess the joke's on WotC.

[Callista]

Slayer of Domiel from BoED. Sneak attack instead of death attack, and their version of death attack sucks, but that's pretty much what you're looking for.Well, the Assassin's death attack was never really the best feature of the class anyway. There are ways to optimize it, of course.

[Frozen_Feet]

Minor thread hijacking:

Suppose a player wants to make a character that largely functions like an Assassin (especially the spells), but is available to Good characters without houserule-waiving alignment restrictions. What class/PrC could they use?


Ranger. Rogue or Psionic Rogue would do mighty well too.

Elaboration on the ranger: take a look at what Faramir and fellows do in LotR movies - sneaking around in camouflage, killing evil folks from afar. Rangers are like Spec Ops soldiers - they thrive in moving behind enemy lines, hidden from view, and can make pretty good silent killers. They have several spells that make them good for sniping, or they could multiclass for something like scout/swift hunter combo. And don't forget Favored Enemy. XD

Rogue and esp. Psionic Rogue should be easy to grasp. Both offer abilities and skills to play the part, and the latter has the "spellcasting" part down as well.

[NNescio]

Minor thread hijacking:

Suppose a player wants to make a character that largely functions like an Assassin (especially the spells), but is available to Good characters without houserule-waiving alignment restrictions. What class/PrC could they use?

And besides, my two cents on the assassin as written:
The entry req "Must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins" automatically results in an Evil alignment in my book, because it demands a decidedly Evil act. So waiving the alignment restriction wouldn't do anything if you didn't also waive this entry requirement.

Swordsage? Swordsage/Wizard/JPM? Spymaster? Shadowdancer? Nightsong Enforcer? Invisible Blade? Dread Commando? Imaskari Vengeance Taker?

The Avenger? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a)

[Firechanter]

Another thread revival, because this fits pretty well:

I want to build an NPC military commander using a Bard/Warblade chassis - going for feats like Song of the White Raven and Clarion Commander. Now strictly from a fluff standpoint, it's a soldier, and soldiers tend to be Lawful. Bards on the other hand can't be lawful.

Of course in this case I'm the DM and it's for an NPC, and my players would probably not notice anyway. _But_ I want to keep things fair and equal for everyone. So: would it hurt anything if I just kicked the Bard alignment requirement? I just thought I better check the implications first.

(If it really was a problem, I could still make the guy Neutral, but I feel he should be Lawful)

[Veyr]

No, it doesn't hurt. There isn't a single alignment restriction in the game with meaningful mechanical balance implications. The only time you can't waive them outright are for things like Incarnates, where which of the four available alignments dictates which of four class features they get; if you were to open it up to the other five you'd need rules for figuring out which class feature they get, or make new ones.

[Moriato]

I want to build an NPC military commander using a Bard/Warblade chassis - going for feats like Song of the White Raven and Clarion Commander. Now strictly from a fluff standpoint, it's a soldier, and soldiers tend to be Lawful. Bards on the other hand can't be lawful.


The only thing a bard loses for becoming lawful is the ability to gain more bard levels until he becomes non-lawful again. As long as he's taking the bard levels first, I would say just make him lawful and say that he was nuetral or chaotic, but his military training turned him lawful, which makes perfect sense.

[Firechanter]

Thanks both of you!
Very good, I was planning to give him the Bard levels first anyway, so all the better. Problem solved. =)

[stainboy]

I want to build an NPC military commander using a Bard/Warblade chassis - going for feats like Song of the White Raven and Clarion Commander. Now strictly from a fluff standpoint, it's a soldier, and soldiers tend to be Lawful. Bards on the other hand can't be lawful.


There's only a conflict here if you assume that soldiers have to be lawful. White Raven fluff is all about being a soldier, Song of the White Raven specifically supports a build with White Raven maneuvers and bard levels, bards cannot be lawful. Therefore, soldiers do not have to be lawful.

Is it important to your character concept that you take penalties from Protection from Law, or that you take ability score penalties on the Giant Frog Plane and not the Dice Monster Plane? Because that's all being lawful really does.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't play heavy on alignment, largely because it turns valid ethical disagreements between players and DMs into adversarial "gotcha" style gameplay. Pretty much every alignment thread I read is by some DM wanting to punish players for perfectly acceptable conduct.

Or people arguing about Batman. To be honest, I'm not sure which frightens me more.

And then, you get the alignment restrictions on classes. You have the restrictions on Clerics and Paladins, which make perfect sense, and then the Barbarian and Monk, which are debatable but make at least a modicum of sense. Then you have classes like the Druid and Bard, whose alignment restrictions don't make sense, and classes like the Warlock where the alignment restrictions contradict the fluff.

So, in my games, Clerics have alignment restrictions and a code of conduct based on their faith. I allow the variant Paladins from Unearthed Arcana with the same alignment variation as Clerics; their faith determines their code of conduct and which variants are open to them. Every other class is wide open.

[big teej]

Then you have classes like the Druid and Bard, whose alignment restrictions don't make sense, and classes like the Warlock where the alignment restrictions contradict the fluff.
.

I haven't read the warlock class, so I won't speak to that.

but of all the base classess, I feel the Druid deserves it's restriction even more than perhaps the paladin and cleric.

they worship Nature.

Nature is not Good or Evil. it simply IS.

heck, in our group, druids have to be True Neutral instead of just Neutral Something.

/2cp

[Firechanter]

Yeah, before 3E Druids had to be True Neutral. In AD&D, Druid was some kind of Cleric subclass... too long since, can't quite remember. A friend played one once, but it didn't take -- that guy simply had no motivation whatsoever to adventure or even interact with us.
I also remember AD&D texts giving "advice" how to play out the neutral alignment. Like "A druid may help defend a village against wolf attacks, but if the wolves are decimated too much, the druid might change sides and help them against the villagers".

[big teej]

you're right.... why would druids go adventuring...

heck, why would adventuring parties take them along?

traitor waiting to happen.

"oh no, there's too much good in the world, this means we need moar ebil!! backstab!"

[Cog]

"oh no, there's too much good in the world, this means we need moar ebil!! backstab!"
Not all TNs are the, err, "terrorist fundamentalist" TNs. :smallconfused:

(That said, I do still dislike making alignment more restrictive rather than less.)

[Callista]

That's about as realistic as Detect-Smite paladins.

True neutral just means he's dedicated to nature first and above all, regardless of morality. "Balancing" every good deed with an evil one is unrealistic. Most true neutral characters simply commit neither strongly good nor strongly evil acts.

[big teej]

Not all TNs are the, err, "terrorist fundamentalist" TNs. :smallconfused:

(That said, I do still dislike making alignment more restrictive rather than less.)


I was mostly joking, simply following the logic of "if wolves are being decimated by the villiagers, the druid may switch sides"


EDIT:

That's about as realistic as Detect-Smite paladins.
.

for the record, I've encountered this individual....

it was sad.

[HalfDragonCube]

So far, no Paladins or Good Clerics have fallen in my campaigns. There has never been a Good Paladin to begin with and the only Good Cleric died before he could do much Evil. He went round with the rest of the party as damage control (he may have done more Good if they didn't outnumber him and have no reason not to kill him if he got in their way and more Evil if he hadn't strapped himself to the party's stupid and insane Barbarian Warlock for the extra mobility). I'm a fairly new DM and my players vastly prefer Evil characters even before the fact that a great many classic adventuring parties would be considered Evil in my games. Someone does not necessarily deserve death just because they ping on Detect Evil. If it has a mind it can change alignment, if it doesn't it doesn't have an alignment to begin with. Good characters are expected to use non-lethal means (either through combat or diplomacy) for as long as possible, "respect for life" is Good's thing, destroying or worsening it is Evil's.

I also think you're undervaluing the number of people who have soley diplomatic games, or games where characters regularly take and use BoED vows, but I don't tend to run or play those (not sure my players would cooperate and the few DMs here apart from me run combat-heavy classic stuff (veterans of older editions, I'm fairly sure) and with *shudder*critical fumble and critical hit tables*shudder*).

But yes, my campaigns feature almost universally Evil characters. My players wouldn't have it any other way. If other things work for you, that's fine. Thanks for respecting my group's playstyle (even if you wouldn't enjoy it).

That cleric was me, Quillathe, drow cleric of Ehlonna.:smallbiggrin:

Having to maintain your alignment while making sure the unpredictable party doesn't cut your throat out can be difficult, but great fun.

Evil cleric: Right, let's make some money.
Fighter: We can go mugging!
Me: I'll join in too.
DM: You're good, explain how you are going to do this without losing your spells.
Me: ... I make sure they don't kill the victims, only scare them.
DM: That'll do.

Still, from that (brief) experience as a good character, I have come to the conclusion that being very different alignment-wise to everybody else in the party is a bad idea.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I haven't read the warlock class, so I won't speak to that.

It goes to great lengths talking about good Warlocks struggling to use their corrupt powers against the very entities that granted them-- and then the alignment restriction is any Evil or any Chaotic. So anyone with Warlock powers who uses them for Good is Chaotic, regardless of how they acquired those powers in the first place.



but of all the base classess, I feel the Druid deserves it's restriction even more than perhaps the paladin and cleric.

they worship Nature.

Nature is not Good or Evil. it simply IS.

Exactly. Nature isn't Good or Evil. It's also not opposed to Good or Evil, and a person can worship Nature in all of its majestic glory, or in all of its terrible cruelty, regardless of their alignment. There's nothing unnatural about being Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or anything in between and there are several races with strong alignment tendencies that are nonetheless also predisposed to worshiping Nature.


heck, in our group, druids have to be True Neutral instead of just Neutral Something.

At least that makes a little sense, if your argument is that all moral alignment is unnatural and attracted to gods and other beings from the Outer Planes.

But if being Good is compatible with worshiping Nature, and being Lawful is compatible with worshiping Nature, then it defies all reason to argue that being Lawful and Good is incompatible. It is no more "extreme" an alignment than Neutral Good.


I also remember AD&D texts giving "advice" how to play out the neutral alignment. Like "A druid may help defend a village against wolf attacks, but if the wolves are decimated too much, the druid might change sides and help them against the villagers".

Yeah. I've played with DMs who've enforced that attitude for all Neutral characters, not just Druids. It's gone a long way toward informing my belief that games shouldn't have rules based on moral philosophy because most people are just too damned stupid to understand them.