Opinions on alignment restriction [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sir_Chivalry

2012-01-23, 09:19 PM

Before I begin, the purpose of this thread is to gauge opinion on alignment restrictions (e.g. that barbarians and bards cannot be lawful, that knights and monks cannot be neutral or chaotic, and so on). You are all welcome to post, as I have been having conversations on this subject with my players for some time, and would like to see if I am in the minority on this.

I for one, as the title would suggest, am against them.

Very little is accomplished, in my opinion, by limiting a character concept. Alignment restrictions on classes force a certain type of character (severity of restriction based on interpretation of what the various alignment tags mean) to be represented among the characters who are of that class. Moreover, certain types of character are missing from the general population of a restricted class. Let us, for argument's sake, look at Alric the Barbarian. Alric cannot be these things, either overly or in some cases even a little:

honorable
trustworthy
show obedience to authority
reliable
close-minded
have reactionary adherence to tradition
judgmental
have a lack of the ability to adapt

These traits are taken directly from the section on alignment in the PHB.

There are things I understand, like that the general image of a barbarian is one of an uncultured savage. But all the traits listed above could easily apply to someone raised in a xenophobic tribe.

Another issue I have with alignment restrictions is that it limits the mixing of classes in multiclass scenarios. These are the options that don't exist as completely viable if not totally invalid:

Barbarian/Monk - harnessing the power of his rage to deepen his understanding of his spiritual self. Alternatively, using the monastic arts to contain an out of control rage.
Barbarian/Paladin (of Honour or Tyranny) - bringing the divine (or profane) fury down on the foes of good. Alternatively, rage is actually accomplished by allowing a celestial to possess you.
Barbarian/Knight - a mounted warrior who is good at calling out foes, absolutely nothing about knights besides the code of chivalry points to being from a formal group let along lawful
Barbarian/Samurai - anyone who knows a little about OA, tell me this wouldn't work for a Crab Clan Samurai
Bard/Monk - a wandering knowledgable martial artist (or one who's tried a little of everything with bardic knack) who uses ancient chants to inspire his allies.
Bard/Paladin (of Honour or Tyranny) - this one does exist with the help of the feat Devoted Performer from Complete Adventurer, but therefore costs a feat just because of alignment
Bard/Knight - this is the one that got me thinking, both for out of game synergy and in game as well. A trained minstrel or a noble with an interest in the arts who never the less swears to the code and upholds virtue. Could be a lawful-type, but could also work with a knight-errant, wooing the ladies and defending the unfortunate.
Bard/Samurai - much like knights, samurai in the idealized world of pop culture are apparently cultured beings with training in the arts.
Monk/Warlock - same idea as the barbarian/monk, using the training to contain the beast within
Monk/Wu jen - a reclusive mystic who also is trained in the arts of hand-to-hand combat and self-perfection
Paladin/Druid - there are fey courts, celestial organizations and good gods who all are connected with nature, and the same goes for evil paladin variants.
Paladin of Honour/Warlock - either a fiendlock or feylock trying to purify what dwells within, or a starlock or feylock who uses his powers from good sources to augment his sacred abilities.
Paladin of Honour or Tyranny/Wu jen - this one I'm reaching on, but perhaps a holy/unholy warrior who studies the more esoteric arcane teachings (perhaps a sword of the arcane order?) in order to augment his abilities
Paladin of Honour or Freedom/Hexblade - the PHB2 talks of hexblades being the perfect champion against evil, knowing evil firsthand. Why can't one 'find god' and use his dark experience alongside new-found righteous might?
Paladin of Honour or Freedom/Dread Necromancer- in a game like Eberron, or any other game where undead are not immediately evil, this should be possible from the getgo. Also, the church of Wee Jaas, in fluff articles from Dragon, is said to only raise from the dead those who donate their bodies to the church. Couldn't a Jaasite paladin be allowed to raise the dead?
Knight/non-LE Warlock - a young noble finds out his bloodline can be traced to someone who made a deal with (insert source). Now, even though he's trained his whole life to be a champion of the crown, the little voices in his head have other plans.
Knight/Wu jen - the restrictive code of the knight and the taboos of the wu jen dovetail together in some interesting ways. Perhaps it would easy for a disciplined character to follow both and find some armour that doesn't cause arcane spell failure. A sort of weird gish would result.
Healer/Hexblade - I can't think of a good reason for this one, but it should still exist!:smalltongue: Why is healing only for good people?
Healer/Dread Necromancer - what's the difference between the human body when it's alive and when it's dead? To be a pathologist, you train to be a doctor. Someone who wants to know how to animate the dead might also learn how to heal the living, creating an interesting dualistic character.
Samurai/Warlock - tales abound of the kami, spirits who are unknowable or mysterious. Perhaps one placed a blessing on the young samurai (or his ancestor) and that manifests as warlock powers.
Samurai/Wu jen - Besides the knight multiclass idea above, what about a warrior who marries the secrets of the wu jen with his prowess in the art of war to get the upper hand on his foes?

Just because the books suggest something doesn't mean it has to be law. There are suggestions (mainly legacy rules) that dwarves cannot be wizards, orcs cannot be wizards, etc., but these are ignored in most games because they are too limiting.

So, what does everyone else think?

Yora

2012-01-23, 09:25 PM

I think the restrictions are plausible by their own internal logic.

However, there is no reason to use a different interpretation of alignment in which the restrictions would no longer apply.

sonofzeal

2012-01-23, 09:32 PM

I don't really agree with them, but I still generally follow them. Sometimes the restrictions end up actually suggesting character traits to me, or alternate builds. I'd approve of a DM who got rid of them, but I tend not to actually bother officially houseruling it in my games unless a player asks for an exception.

Orannis

2012-01-23, 09:35 PM

I am with you actually. I always felt like alignment was supposed to be a fluid concept. Every good character I have ever seen has committed at least a few morally questionable acts and every chaotic person has followed directions at least occasionally. More importantly I agree with you about the multiclassing. I once built a monk (I was young and foolish, don't judge) who took ranks in barbarian and eventually frenzied berzerker. I imagined the character going into a "quiet rage" like one sees in some anime shows when the character in question has a serious need to eviscerate his opponents. DM didn't like it, pointed straight at the alignment prohibition and said (nicely) pound sand. A while later I got a chance to play that character (as a LN) and I couldn't have enjoyed the experience more.

That said I do think that while classes should be open to really any alignment their organizations should have prohibitions. An army of commando types who never take their officers orders seriously works really well if that is the entire force and the strategy is based around those tactics. throw in a bunch of rigorously ordered formation based soldiers, a few who are just out to kill as many enemies as they can, and a few who are trying to remain humane gentle man all integrated together and you have a recipe for disaster.

Combining the two points makes for a lot of fun. LG Paladin Assassins who hunt down and kill enemies of the faith. LE Barbarian overlords who rule through an iron fist and so on.

Coidzor

2012-01-23, 09:59 PM

Don't like them in general. Especially the barbarian and bard ones. I prefer the variant paladins more than just having one favor, and, well, the alignment restrictions there are just a bad time and a half from all fo the fun and games of paladins falling partially because of them. :smallyuk:

Also, most of them are either superfluous (especially in terms of "you must serve X deity to enter PrCs that irk me on another level, but that's something that people seem to be more willing to reapply to a different deity anyway than changing alignments that are hardcoded in) or nonsensical.

sonofzeal

2012-01-23, 10:00 PM

Combining the two points makes for a lot of fun. LG Paladin Assassins who hunt down and kill enemies of the faith. LE Barbarian overlords who rule through an iron fist and so on.
Rorschach might be a Paladin/Assassin. Beowulf might be a L# Barbarian, with exact alignment depending on version and interpretation.

Telonius

2012-01-23, 10:22 PM

There are only a few instances where I enforce alignment restrictions; mainly for deity-related things or (some) divine spellcasters. Clerics, Paladins (my houserules require them to take their deity's alignment), Druids. Favored Souls can be any alignment (gods can pick their own chosen, for reasons known only to them).

The alignment restriction on Bards has always struck me as the silliest of the core PHB restrictions, followed closely by Barbarian and Monk.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-23, 10:55 PM

I am a staunch believer in alignment restrictions. Alignment restrictions are an important part of the structured fluff of the classes. If you really want to play a character that is different, alignment-wise, you generally can (there are lots of variant character classes with different alignment restrictions, and their own fluff for those restrictions), but the originally posted classes have their fluff for a reason, and it's shown that when you change alignments, you get different class features (Chaotic Monk, Paladin of X, etc) so clearly, alignment is tied to the class features that alignment restricted classes receive.

Additionally, certain alignment restrictions just make sense to me, and I don't like the idea of someone just ignoring them. Like the stormcaster in Stormwrack. The fact that he is nonlawful just makes him so much more easy for me to picture in my head, like some kind of power-mad druid or sorcerer standing on a mountain side laughing maniacally as he tosses lightning bolts everywhere. It's great. :smallbiggrin:

In my personal opinion, the alignment system could stand to be a bit more restrictive (like good wizards being allowed to cast [Evil] spells, and vice versa. That just plain bothers me) but as it stands now, I like it.

Coidzor

2012-01-23, 11:03 PM

the originally posted classes have their fluff for a reason

Most of which boil down to "Old Guy X said so," and saying "there's a reason for X" in a gaming system where it wouldn't be printed without someone having some reason for writing it is about as meaningless as saying water is wet.

edit: So it then must mean that those reasons had to be good reasons rather than arbitrary ones to be worth mentioning and to hold water. So far though, I don't think anyone has come up with these good reasons to back up such an assertion.

bloodtide

2012-01-23, 11:10 PM

I'm in favor of alignment restrictions. I'm even more so in favor of the more restrictive 1/2 E ones. To put it simply, not everyone can be everything. And when you do that, you water down everything. What is a good guy? A bad guy or such? Well, if they can be 'anything', it does not matter.

And each class in D&D is restrictive of a single idea, they are not generic. The core class barbarian is a chaotic, wild raging warrior type...not a 'bland wild warrior guy'. You can be a 'noble and lawful savage barbarian'(say Riverwind) but you can't be the core barbarian class. The same way a bard is chaotic, but you could play a lawful character that liked songs.

skywalker

2012-01-23, 11:39 PM

I think they're very silly. While I believe that some "structured fluff" is a good thing, classes are in the end just a balanced collection of abilities. I do think that one of 4e's flaws is that there was not enough mechanical differentiation between the classes, but alignment/multi-classing restrictions do very, very little to improve gameplay, balance, or flow. They're really just enforced fluff, which is not something I'm a fan of.

EDIT:
And each class in D&D is restrictive of a single idea, they are not generic. The core class barbarian is a chaotic, wild raging warrior type...not a 'bland wild warrior guy'. You can be a 'noble and lawful savage barbarian'(say Riverwind) but you can't be the core barbarian class. The same way a bard is chaotic, but you could play a lawful character that liked songs.

But you wouldn't get any of the bard's class features... I don't play a bard because I like songs, I play a bard because I like the unique combination of buffs and debuffs they get, along with an interesting mix of proficiencies and class features. Inspire courage is not necessarily a musical ability, reference Elan's speech.

Slipperychicken

2012-01-23, 11:42 PM

Personally, I don't really like them. I always want to fluff Barbarian Rage as some kind of "Warrior Battle Focus" that doesn't involve screaming, or generally play a Barbarian without anger issues.

I wanted to play a Paladin, but then I looked at their Code and picked up a Crusader.

TL;DR:
I am of the persuasion that classes are mechanical building blocks to realize a concept, rather than the concept itself.

Lateral

2012-01-23, 11:56 PM

I treat classes as game constructs, and fluff as mutable. As such, it would be silly for me to enforce alignment restrictions unless the class's class abilities are so heavily tied to that alignment that changing it would require an overhaul of the class, and even then I'm open to modification.

Mari01

2012-01-24, 12:22 AM

I feel as though it's a double edged sword. On one hand, without them, some class combinations can be combined with alignments for fun role playing opportunities. Then again, some classes just make sense with certain alignments disallowed.

GoatBoy

2012-01-24, 12:32 AM

They kind of make sense from a world-building standpoint, but do seem a little silly in a system which claimed to be built entirely on options.

My ideal situation would be alignment prohibitions, but not restrictions. If this makes no sense, then what I mean is monks must be non-chaotic, and bards and barbarians non-lawful. etc. It preserves the flavour that was intended, but doesn't put players in a straight jacket if they were hoping to play something like a barbarian/monk. The fact that such a character would be restricted to a neutral alignment emphasizes the ethical balance one might have to maintain to follow such a path.

Then again, if a player was dead-set on playing a chaotic good paladin/druid or something, I'd just say, "sure, if you can justify it to me." In other words, I'll give you an exception if you can demonstrate how exceptional you are.

Hirax

2012-01-24, 12:54 AM

Mystify

2012-01-24, 02:34 AM

They always made sense to me. For the most part, the classes are doing something that is inherent to an alignment.

The basic idea of a monk is a person who has applied self-discipline to better themselves. Being lawful is key to that.

A barabrian has to let themselves go into a rage, which is a very chaotic state of mind, freeing themselves from rigid control. This is in direct conflict with being lawful.

The very idea of the knight is that they have dedicated themselves to a lord, and follow codes of chivalry and conduct.

I could go on, but the alignment restrictions represent the very nature of the class. A lot of the character concepts you present are either pointless (your barbarian/knight concept is just a knight.), contradictory( Your monk/barbarian really doesn't sell it to me. Being in a rage seems anathema to a monk's disciplined fighting style. They are opposites), or better served by a different mechanic (There are ways to get a more controlled rage, for instance). Sometimes the mechanic does not exist, but that is what homebrew is for.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 02:37 AM

kardar233

2012-01-24, 02:38 AM

Suggested, but ultimately optional.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 02:49 AM

Suggested, but ultimately optional.

"Ultimately optional"? So if someone wanted to play a chaotic good blackguard, you would let them? :smallconfused: "I'm sorry Mr. Paladin, I know I project an Aura of Evil, but I swear to you, I'm just as Good as you are!"

kardar233

2012-01-24, 03:06 AM

Correction:

If someone wants to play a heavily armoured, martially-oriented character who makes thunderous attacks against certain dedicated adversaries while having a recourse to stealth, plus a powerful, sentient creature as a sidekick, then I'll let them play a Blackguard. I might as well point them at the Ruby Knight Vindicator, Shadowbane Inquisitor, Devoted Inquisitor Paladin/Rogue, Ghost-Faced Killah+Familiar or any one of other, similar classes as well, to see what they like best.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 03:09 AM

Mystify: What you are missing is that, for example, that some people like to play D&D where the Barbarian, by the rules, enters a 'Rage', but that the character is not actually getting angry, ie, is not actually flying into a rage.

Which is a completely different play style, which generally means where someone has an idea of the sorts of things a person happens to be able to do in their head, and simply use the abilities shown in the classes as a sort of lego tool to achieve the sorts of things they view such a character should be able to do. In such a game style, classes are NOT lifestyle choices at all -- they are collections of abilities.

While that is a perfectly permissible playstle, it is not what D&D intends; It has a clear setting, with consistent rules within that setting. the actual settings elaborate on it, but rarely change its fundamental natue, at least not at the class level.

It also serves as a balancing factor to some degree. I've lost track of how many OP optimized builds my friend tried to fly by me that I shot down based on alignment conflicts.

Basically, What I'm saying is that house-ruling alignment restrictions away is perfectly fine, but they do have their place in the system to begin with.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 03:12 AM

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:16 AM

So you are basically saying that (say) Greyhawk functions exactly as all the fluff in the various 3.5e 'non-setting-specific' books mention? To me, the 3.5e books are mostly schizophrenic on the setting they imply, with several mutually exclusive concepts in several of the books...

Also, good Dread Necromancer? That requires some changing on how Undead work in a setting:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Necromancy_%28DnD_Other%29/Morality

It requires the playing with fire option. Dread Necromancers mostly don't make intelligent undead in general, usually just skeletons and zombies, so they are generally okay. Also, look at the Lich abilities: they are fearsome, have natural armor, can paralyze, have a few immunities, and come back if they die. Just remove the Evil descriptor of the Lich under Playing With Fire morality option.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 03:18 AM

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:21 AM

Philistine

2012-01-24, 03:22 AM

One problem is that - especially with Law and Chaos - the things that get put into each category are pretty arbitrary, and not terribly consistent. For example: the same reasoning that makes Dwarves "Often Lawful" (they like to drink and fight, but otherwise focus on society and clan) and Elves "Usually Chaotic" (they enjoy living quiet lives of self-improvement, and don't concern themselves overmuch with their place in society) would make Monks Always Chaotic - the quest is for perfection of the individual, after all, and there's nothing to say that the discipline required to become a Monk is in any way more rigorous than that required of a Wizard. Or even a "Cannot be Lawful" Bard (it takes discipline to learn how to play a musical instrument at a professional level).

The other problem is that it's ridiculously restrictive. Want to play a Paladin of Hextor? PHB says nuuuuu - even though there's no reason why a Lawful Evil character couldn't adhere to a code just as strictly as a Lawful Good character does. Basically, there's a reason why these restrictions got looser and looser with each successive edition of D&D.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 03:27 AM

Reread my edited post. What about the lich's abilities make it evil other than the arbitrary [Evil] tag? It has no overwhelming hunger for flesh or blood or anything. All it is, is mostly just a way to become immortal and hard to permanently kill...

You are cheating death by pursuing a path into undeath. That is generally not something nice people do. Though there are archliches, which did do it for noble intents, and are not evil, so the system does support it.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 03:27 AM

Want to play a Paladin of Hextor? PHB says nuuuuu - even though there's no reason why a Lawful Evil character couldn't adhere to a code just as strictly as a Lawful Good character does.

Actually, you can. As messed up as it is, paladins face none of the alignment restrictions that clerics do. You can be a Lawful Good paladin of Hextor. It doesn't matter who you worship, as long as your alignment is constant.

Reread my edited post. What about the lich's abilities make it evil other than the arbitrary [Evil] tag? It has no overwhelming hunger for flesh or blood or anything. All it is, is mostly just a way to become immortal and hard to permanently kill...

Immortality is the ultimate desire born out of selfishness, greed, and fear. Fear of death, fear of loss. Greed to live on, greed to continue existing, possessing, even when you should die. Selfishness, because you must live on while all around you die, because you somehow deserve it when no one else does.

I personally see immortality and the willing desire to transform yourself into an abomination just to escape death as an incredibly evil thing.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 03:29 AM

Actually, you can. As messed up as it is, paladins face none of the alignment restrictions that clerics do. You can be a Lawful Good paladin of Hextor. It doesn't matter who you worship, as long as your alignment is constant.
.....and that makes more sense to you than LG Bards?

kardar233

2012-01-24, 03:30 AM

Okay, how about if someone wanted to play a good dread necromancer? A class that is entirely based around magic spells with the [Evil] descriptor? (Animate dead, create undead, create greater undead) and ends with you turning into a lich (Alignment: Any evil)?

I'm a Utilitarian, so I consider the concept of an inherently evil act dubious at best. Raise a zombie from the corpse of a guy and send it to murder his daughter, probably evil. Raise an army of skeletons from a destroyed village to fight an oncoming monstrous horde (as a player of mine did during RHoD)? I'd say that's Good.

Lich-wise, I'm not fussed about the alignment there either. With the except of the unnamed "act of unspeakable evil" there's nothing specifically evil about it. While I have to admit I'm a fan of doing something that secures your damnation (or, in the case of an Archlich, your ascension), I don't consider it a requirement.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:39 AM

.....and that makes more sense to you than LG Bards?

What's wrong with LG bards? Music is mathematical... also, bards are great 'inspirational leaders', especially war leaders. Why can't they be lawful? Why do you have to be chaotic to gain arcane power through the study of music? Just take a structured view to your study. And heck, bards don't even need to study MUSIC in particular...

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:41 AM

Immortality is the ultimate desire born out of selfishness, greed, and fear. Fear of death, fear of loss. Greed to live on, greed to continue existing, possessing, even when you should die. Selfishness, because you must live on while all around you die, because you somehow deserve it when no one else does.

I personally see immortality and the willing desire to transform yourself into an abomination just to escape death as an incredibly evil thing.

Uhm. I want to become immortal. Seriously, IRL, not joking. I can't wait for the technological singularity to happen, because I would LOVE to see how the world changes, to explore space, to watch the creation of a star, etc. etc. And I also drastically want to change my personal human condition as well.

Also, death is sad. It's oblivion. It's a state of not being, and it is a terrible, terrible loss. Why is not wanting death -- for anyone -- so evil?

Go read up on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism This is a legitimate ethical viewpoint, the idea that Death itself is morally, absolutely, evil -- is a legitimate way of looking at the world.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 03:42 AM

What's wrong with LG bards? Music is mathematical... also, bards are great 'inspirational leaders', especially war leaders. Why can't they be lawful? Why do you have to be chaotic to gain arcane power through the study of music? Just take a structured view to your study. And heck, bards don't even need to study MUSIC in particular...
Er, dude, I'm agreeing with you. I was posing that as a question for someone who stated they're in favour of alignment restrictions, and then posted about LG Paladins of Hextor. Me, I'm fine with Paladins of Tyranny, LG Bards, and a generally flexible attitude to most things. RAW is fun to debate, but the name of the game is flexibility.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:44 AM

Er, dude, I'm agreeing with you.

Oh sorry. It's a bit late...

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 03:47 AM

.....and that makes more sense to you than LG Bards?

Absolutely not. I'm just stating what is RAW. I personally despise that part of the PHB paladin class, but it has nothing to do with the paladin's alignment restrictions. (The PHB paladin should only be allowed to worship Good deities)

I'm a Utilitarian, so I consider the concept of an inherently evil act dubious at best.

The animate dead spell creates a skeleton or a zombie. Both are "always neutral evil". Even if they obey you completely, they are evil creatures, that you have created.

But okay, we'll ignore that part. How about the create undead or create greater undead spells? There is absolutely no way you can justify those as non-Evil, since they do not grant you any control over the undead you create, and the only undead you can create are intelligent and Evil. They will commit Evil acts, and even if you try and command undead on them, they can always make their save and then go and commit unspeakable acts of destruction.

Lich-wise, I'm not fussed about the alignment there either. With the except of the unnamed "act of unspeakable evil" there's nothing specifically evil about it. While I have to admit I'm a fan of doing something that secures your damnation (or, in the case of an Archlich, your ascension), I don't consider it a requirement.

See my above point. The desire for immortality and the attempt to secure it is, in my opinion, inherently evil.

What's wrong with LG bards? Music is mathematical... also, bards are great 'inspirational leaders', especially war leaders. Why can't they be lawful? Why do you have to be chaotic to gain arcane power through the study of music? Just take a structured view to your study. And heck, bards don't even need to study MUSIC in particular...

You don't have to be Chaotic. Just non-lawful. And the reason for that is simply because of how bards are portrayed in Renaissance stories and paintings. Relaxed traveling minstrels who sit around playing a lute under a tree all day. It's the fluff of a bard.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:48 AM

You don't have to be Chaotic. Just non-lawful. And the reason for that is simply because of how bards are portrayed in Renaissance stories and paintings. Relaxed traveling minstrels who sit around playing a lute under a tree all day. It's the fluff of a bard.

What if I don't want to do that fluff and still be a bard?

Also, I find the idea that you find my viewpoints inherently evil quite insulting.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 03:50 AM

What if I don't want to do that fluff and still be a bard?

Then move away from the strict system and what it is doing and enter the realm of houseruling. If you are ignoring the fluff, you are houseruling new fluff(if the term applies). Hence, you can houserule the alignment away with it.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 03:51 AM

What if I don't want to do that fluff and still be a bard?

Then you don't want to be a bard. You want to be a character with the bard's class features. And you should be penalized for going against fluff and treating class features as just a bunch of numbers and abilities that you can slap onto anyone without a reason.

D&D isn't like other roleplaying games where you can just pick and choose abilities and customize your character any which way you want. D&D sets structured standards for their classes, and that's why I play it over things like GURPS.

Edit:
And I find that you find my viewpoints inherently evil quite insulting

Sorry. I am speaking about D&D here. Securing immortality for oneself and only oneself (as the process of becoming a lich is) is a selfish act, and selfishness is, by D&D definition, evil.

kardar233

2012-01-24, 03:54 AM

But okay, we'll ignore that part. How about the create undead or create greater undead spells? There is absolutely no way you can justify those as non-Evil, since they do not grant you any control over the undead you create, and the only undead you can create are intelligent and Evil. They will commit Evil acts, and even if you try and command undead on them, they can always make their save and then go and commit unspeakable acts of destruction.

By creating, summoning or otherwise calling any creature, you assume responsibility for its actions. Create Undead has great potential to be evil if not used properly. A Fireball could have a similar effect; does that make Fireball evil?

Using Create Undead is in the same book as summoning an Evil creature. Not inherently evil (I don't see anything as being so) but very likely to graduate towards Evil. If you summon a Balor for whatever reason and it gets free, it's your own damn fault for not having the thing under control. Create Undead is no different.

See my above point. The desire for immortality and the attempt to secure it is, in my opinion, inherently evil.

Couldn't agree less. Immortality itself is a state of neutral morality. The only negative connotations associated with it are what you do to get there, and what you do once you're there, neither have much to do with immortality itself.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:56 AM

Sorry. I am speaking about D&D here. Securing immortality for oneself and only oneself (as the process of becoming a lich is) is a selfish act, and selfishness is, by D&D definition, evil.

Ah... you should make sure to not make your statements so universal, maybe? This is the internet, it is easy to misinterpret things!

Though I did have a character that wanted to bring about a sort of magical singularity / post-scarcity world?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203424

I even had some ideas for immortality for everyone... it mostly just requires large access to Kissed by the Ages.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 03:57 AM

By creating, summoning or otherwise calling any creature, you assume responsibility for its actions. Create Undead has great potential to be evil if not used properly. A Fireball could have a similar effect; does that make Fireball evil?

Using Create Undead is in the same book as summoning an Evil creature. Not inherently evil (I don't see anything as being so) but very likely to graduate towards Evil. If you summon a Balor for whatever reason and it gets free, it's your own damn fault for not having the thing under control. Create Undead is no different.

...I agree, create undead is no different than using a summon monster spell to call a Balor. I would also like to point out that using a Conjuration (Summoning) or (Calling) effect to summon or call an evil creature adds the [Evil] descriptor to the spell.

Couldn't agree less. Immortality itself is a state of neutral morality. The only negative connotations associated with it are what you do to get there, and what you do once you're there, neither have much to do with immortality itself.

Then we shall just have to disagree. Regardless, I see no reason to oppose the dread necromancer's non-good alignment requirement (which was my original point).

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 03:59 AM

So is 'Desiring immortality for all sapients/sentients in your home culture' a Good act, under your restrictions, in a D&D world?

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 04:03 AM

So is 'Desiring immortality for all sapients/sentients in your home culture' a Good act, under your restrictions, in a D&D world?

They are not "my" restrictions, it's just what the PHB says about the alignment system.

Desiring immortality for all sapient and sentient creatures? Well...I wouldn't go so far as to call it a Good act (Desire alone is not an act, which is why a paladin could very much want to kill an innocent person, but wouldn't fall as long as he didn't actually do it), but it is certainly a nice thought.

Your views on immortality are not evil, if that's what you're asking. I don't want to even begin talking about what's "good" or "evil" in the real world. In D&D it's easy, because there are black and white lines that have been drawn for us.

I apologize if you thought I was saying that you wanting the people you cared about to live forever was evil. That kind of feeling and faith is not even selfish, it wouldn't register an octave below Neutral in my book. :smallsmile:

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 04:04 AM

I apologize if you thought I was saying that you wanting the people you cared about to live forever was evil. That kind of feeling and faith is not even selfish, it wouldn't register an octave below Neutral in my book. :smallsmile:

Don't worry about it, I think the misunderstanding had something to do with it being 4 AM where I am...

NNescio

2012-01-24, 04:04 AM

Sorry. I am speaking about D&D here. Securing immortality for oneself and only oneself (as the process of becoming a lich is) is a selfish act, and selfishness is, by D&D definition, evil.

[Citation needed]

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 harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

I see nothing about selfishness here. Heck, if anything, selfishness is Chaotic Neutral's shtick:

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Now, granted, if good implies altruism, then selfishness is certainly a nongood trait. Failing to meet the standards of being Good, however, does not necessarily make one Evil. That's what the Neutral alignment is for.

The writeups for all three evil alignments certainly imply selfishness to some degree, but more importantly, they also lack compunctions against harming the innocent. The latter is Evil's defining trait.

I'll end this by quoting someone's sig:

Looking out for number 1 is a neutral attitude. Looking out for number 1 while crushing number 2 is evil.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 04:18 AM

Really? I think the most self-serving line in the alignments is this one:

She is out for herself, pure and simple.

Valuing your freedom is one thing. Valuing yourself is completely different.

Of course, we could derail this entire thread discussing what makes a lich's transformation evil (and we pretty much already have). But these kinds of discussions never end in anything other than a gentleman's agreement, so I'll propose that now:

The act of becoming a lich is evil because the Monster Manual says so. There are plenty of other unsupported things that really don't make sense that we just accept because the book says so (Bards have the ability to heal wounds despite being arcane casters, the Mighty Throw maneuver and its kin use Tripping instead of grappling, casting an enlarge person spell on a druid's animal companion will fail, but casting it on the druid while he is within 5' of the animal will make them both grow, etc)

NNescio

2012-01-24, 05:23 AM

Really? I think the most self-serving line in the alignments is this one:

Valuing your freedom is one thing. Valuing yourself is completely different.

And the rest?

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Everyone can be selfish. The Neutral Evil person (excepting the "lollollol Evil totally rulez" guys) is also selfish, but he has no compunctions against harming innocents, nor is he bound by laws or 'petty' codes.

I find the idea that selfishness is inherently evil to be patently absurd (no offence on your character meant). Paladins would fall way too easily, and consider the following examples:

A merchant is stopped by a beggar requesting money. He refuses to give him money. This is selfish. Is he evil?[br]

A beggar is down to his last piece of bread. He sees another beggar, collapsed and starving. He refuses to share his last morsel of food with the other beggar. He is, unmistakeably, looking out for himself. Is he evil?[br]

Peter the farmer is a widower with a single daughter. He owns two potions of Cure Disease. They are family heirlooms of sorts. All of a sudden, his neighbour, an old man, comes down with the plague. He refuses to share even one of his potions with the old man, even if it's the only thing that can save the latter's life. This is selfish. Is he evil?[br]

Cobboc the Uncaring is a wizard who lives in a tower. Some time ago, a group of settlers set up a village within sight of his abode. One day, bandits attack the village while the Cobboc is engaged with a ritual, the culmination of months worth of research that he has invested money and XP into. Interrupting the ritual would cause Cobboc to lose all his progress, and as such he chooses not to come to the aid of the villagers. The next day, the village is wiped out. Cobboc is unmistakably selfish. Is he evil?[br]

A party of four Level 3 adventurers join a caravan for an easier planned entry into a city, paying the caravan leader a fee to do so. There are families with children as part of the caravan. One night, the caravan is attacked by a Balor. The party flee by themselves, despite being able to bring several caravan members (the children in particular, who are lighter) to safety with them. They are cowards, and selfish. Are they evil?

Now compare this with the next set:

A merchant is stopped by a beggar requesting money. Annoyed, and knowing that the city has anti-vagrancy laws ('though not so well enforced), he hails a nearby guard and exercises his influence to have the beggar jailed. Is he evil? Why?[br]

A beggar is starving. Another beggar who is also starving manages to get some bread. The first beggar asks the second to share his food with him, but the latter refuses. Desperate (and perhaps a bit angry), the first beggar takes a shiv and stabs the second beggar, stealing his food and leaving the latter bleeding on the ground. Is he evil? Why?[br]

Peter the farmer is a widower with a single daughter. All of a sudden, his daughter comes down with the plague. He knows that his neighbour, an old man, has a cache of Cure Disease potions, and has recently recovered from the same disease itself. The father, desperate, went over to his neighbour's house to ask for a potion for his daughter. The old man refuses, as he only has one potion left. Peter then bludgeons the old man to death before taking the latter's potion for his daughter. Is he evil? Why?[br]

Cobboc the Unloved is a wizard who lives in a tower. He is engaged in magical research. One day, a group of settlers set up a village within sight of his abode. This provides an opportunity to Cobboc, as utilizing the villagers in his research would help shave off the time required in a ritual immensely, as well as saving a decent amount of resources (money and XP), while technically being nonlethal to said villagers. Cobboc moves, and enslaves captures the villagers for use in his research. He releases them later. Is he evil? Why?[br]

A party of four Level 3 adventurers join a caravan for an easier planned entry into a city, paying the caravan leader a fee to do so. One night, the caravan is attacked by a Pit Fiend. The party flees, but are captured by the Pit Fiend who went after them. The fiend, in a fit of amusement, promises to free the party, unharmed, if they help him hunt down the caravan members. Refusal would end in death and the binding of their souls, and so the party agrees to his terms. The party then help capture the caravan members and are thus freed by the fiend, as agreed. Are they evil? Why?

Note the main difference between the first and second set of examples.

The act of becoming a lich is evil because the Monster Manual says so. )

This I agree with.

Seharvepernfan

2012-01-24, 06:29 AM

Curmudgeon

2012-01-24, 06:39 AM

Most parts of the game don't care about alignment. Adding the alignment system in general, and a few associated restrictions on combinations, is an attempt at making the player think through their character's interactions with the world around them. Whether that's successful or not, I generally find limits on what you can and can't do with a character makes the game better. That is, even restricting some combinations arbitrarily (as opposed to the stated goal of making the 2-axis alignment system reflect character beliefs) requires players to give some more thought to what they're trying to assemble into a single character. If you've got to stop and consider alternatives because alignment (or anything else) rules out a particular combination, that forced contemplation usually results in a better outcome. (Plus, I enjoy a challenge. :smallsmile:)

You want a Barbarian/Monk? Dragon # 335 has the Chaos Monk, which combines quite nicely.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 06:40 AM

I'm okay with them, I think they make sense.

That said, I've allowed chaotic monks and non-evil assassins before, just for fun. In any serious campaign (as in, designed to be challenging and realistic and requiring some serious effort), I would enforce them.

I believe that a lot of the people who disagree with them are overlooking some basic things, but as is usual with alignment, people are just going to argue about it.
I find it a bit condescending for you to claim I'm "overlooking some basic things".

Let's put it this way - the primary reason I'm against them is because I'm a firm believer in variety. Most Bards are Chaotic, sure, but sometimes the Keeper of Stories for a castle might be best represented by a Lawful Bard. Most Assassins are evil, but a CG Robin Hood style Assassin could exist. Most Monks are Lawful, but one who finds their focus in nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Animals) could be TN without any contradiction - heck, my brother is very thoroughly Chaotic by any standards, but is pretty darn good at Bagua.

Whatever the mould is, there's always going to be people that break it. They may not be common, and they may face extra struggles as a result, but then that's part of being human too. Enforcing alignment (and other) restrictions rigidly is like saying you know the sum total of human potential, which strikes me as "overlooking some basic things" - namely, the nigh-infinite variety we see in the real world every day.

limejuicepowder

2012-01-24, 06:45 AM

Fascinating discussion guys. This is why I love GitP.

Anyways, I would like to add my two cents. If selfishness is indeed an evil act as Neo suggests, rather then a neutral one, then there are some real problems when we start defining selfishness. If we are to define pure selfishness as pure evil, then even small amounts of selfishness are at least slightly evil. Thus virtually every act would become at least slightly evil, as can be seen in the prior examples. Thinking of yourself or loved ones over a complete stranger is at least slightly selfish, thus slightly evil, no matter your reasons.

Also, I think this idea upholding this ideal would lead to more harm then good. Consider a great hero lost in the wilderness, on the edge of starvation. Before he eats his last bit of food, food that could quite possibly give him the energy to survive, he comes across a local, who is also starving and lost. Being the hero that he is, he gives his food to the local, since he truly believes in the ideals of selflessness. Quite predictably, the hero dies and the local lives. The local goes on to live his life in complete obscurity in his tiny village, but if the hero had survived, he would have gone on to do more good in the world. At the time, it was clearly the selfless thing to do but lead to a less good act (predictably so). Would the hero really be committing an evil act by keeping his food to himself, or is this a clear case of the ends justifying the means? I'm definitively of the opinion that if moral ideas are not tempered by reality they are not moral at all - one must consider the longer term impacts of an action, rather then just the moment. Thus selfishness is NOT inherently evil.

horseboy

2012-01-24, 06:55 AM

I loathe the alignment system with all of my soul. If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to run it, it would be the first thing I'd chuck out. With no alignment system, there'd be no alignment restrictions on class.

mikau013

2012-01-24, 07:18 AM

The real problems with alignment in dnd is the way that it is defined.

"A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book. "

Not to mention the weird interaction between

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

and minless skeletons (evil)

A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions.

Seharvepernfan

2012-01-24, 07:24 AM

Most Bards are Chaotic, sure, but sometimes the Keeper of Stories for a castle might be best represented by a Lawful Bard. Most Assassins are evil, but a CG Robin Hood style Assassin could exist. Most Monks are Lawful, but one who finds their focus in nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Animals) could be TN without any contradiction

'k, I'll bite.

The problem with all this is you're either overlooking what alignment is or what a class is.

Does your keeper of stories need to be an actual bard? Why not a loremaster or expert with perform? If he is an actual bard, does the keeper of stories need to be lawful? Why?
Being an actual bard takes a special freedom of mind, not just talent in music or knowledge.

CG damage specialist rogues can be "assassins", but not psychopathically cold-blooded enough to study and practice hitting people in the absolute most painful and sensitive areas to the extent required to make a death/paralyze attack. That takes a special kind of anti-empathic motivation, not just practiced precision aiming or knowing that some spots are weaker than others.

Being a monk takes the most rigid and disciplined kind of person. It takes a mind that doesn't stray and a personality that doesn't change. Just trying to emulate nature or looking to it to find your focus doesn't mean you aren't lawful. Finding focus, as in, devoting your single-minded effort to force all distractions and temptations out of your mind to train it to be calm, how is that anything but lawful? A neutral person doesn't discipline themself to that extent just to train their mind to be calm all the time, why would they? They're neutral, they're not devoted to a strict lifestyle. So what if the monk meditates under a waterfall or on a tree branch, or picks a fighting style that emulates an animals' movements? What if they chose the rooftop of a building overlooking a bustling marketplace? It isn't exactly how a monk trains, its why and what for.

EDIT: I don't think I was specific enough with "Finding focus, as in, devoting your single-minded effort to force all distractions and temptations out of your mind to train it to be calm, how is that anything but lawful?"

There is a difference between keeping your mind calm when you need it to be and training your mind to behave in a very strict and rigid way all the time (which is what it takes to achieve the monks abilities).

Tenno Seremel

2012-01-24, 07:54 AM

And you should be penalized for going against fluff and treating class features as just a bunch of numbers and abilities that you can slap onto anyone without a reason.
Constructing something else from what you have is “no reason”? Err… what? Penalizing someone because he has his own ideas is bad.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 08:12 AM

'k, I'll bite.

The problem with all this is you're either overlooking what alignment is or what a class is.

Does your keeper of stories need to be an actual bard? Why not a loremaster or expert with perform? If he is an actual bard, does the keeper of stories need to be lawful? Why?
Being an actual bard takes a special freedom of mind, not just talent in music or knowledge.

CG damage specialist rogues can be "assassins", but not psychopathically cold-blooded enough to study and practice hitting people in the absolute most painful and sensitive areas to the extent required to make a death/paralyze attack. That takes a special kind of anti-empathic motivation, not just practiced precision aiming or knowing that some spots are weaker than others.

Being a monk takes the most rigid and disciplined kind of person. It takes a mind that doesn't stray and a personality that doesn't change. Just trying to emulate nature or looking to it to find your focus doesn't mean you aren't lawful. Finding focus, as in, devoting your single-minded effort to force all distractions and temptations out of your mind to train it to be calm, how is that anything but lawful? A neutral person doesn't discipline themself to that extent just to train their mind to be calm all the time, why would they? They're neutral, they're not devoted to a strict lifestyle. So what if the monk meditates under a waterfall or on a tree branch, or picks a fighting style that emulates an animals' movements? What if they chose the rooftop of a building overlooking a bustling marketplace? It isn't exactly how a monk trains, its why and what for.
....and that's why those sorts of characters are the exceptions. But denying their possibility, categorically and without exception, is presuming far too much.

In the real world, how much can you tell about a person's personality just by knowing their profession and skills? How reliable is that? If I tell you that a friend of mine has a Masters in History, wins dance competitions, and loves musicals, could you tell me her personality? What about my friend who's excellent at building things, comedy, and has a reaction time that'd put most pro athletes to shame? How much can you truly presume about either? I mean, you can likely make educated guesses, but are there any personality traits you'd say are flat-out impossible?

And even if you could make hard-and-fast statements in the real world - this is fantasy. This is supposed to be heroic, we're supposed to be using our imaginations. If you seriously can't imagine how a Bard might be LN, or a Monk might NG, or an Assassin might be CN, then isn't a game based entirely around imagination a poor fit for you? And if you as DM ban anything that doesn't fit your nice little preconceptions, isn't that a bit draconian for something that you're presumably doing for friends?

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 08:27 AM

panaikhan

2012-01-24, 08:35 AM

I once played a character who (as a side-plot between adventuring) searched the lands looking for Evil persons in places of power, and when she found them, killed them in their sleep.
Game Mechanic: Assassin
Only difference being, the character specifically targeted Evil and Corruption, and didn't get payed for it - just did it because she desired to.

I know what alignment my DM allowed, just wondering what the forum thinks they would allow...

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 08:39 AM

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 08:55 AM

How do you get that to be lawful? I'd say killing sleeping victims, even if evil is CN more likely.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 09:00 AM

How do you get that to be lawful? I'd say killing sleeping victims, even if evil is CN more likely.
Either is possible. However, I take "on a dedicated long term mission" to be a more Lawful trait, especially since the method seems to involve planning and patience and dedication. I wouldn't rule out a CN character with a similar modus operandi though.

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 09:14 AM

Yeah, got that: was more concerned about the whole abide and uphold the law thing.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 09:17 AM

Yeah, got that: was more concerned about the whole abide and uphold the law thing.
Many evil creatures are also lawbreakers; killing them would be part of "upholding" the law even if it isn't always "abiding" by it. And heck, a gov't sponsored Special Ops team to assassinate malefactors in the kingdom could easily include a LN Assassin.

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 09:39 AM

Sure, but would they be considered lawful? Sounds like they would be hearing the Mission Impossible tag lines everytime they head out...

Aotrs Commander

2012-01-24, 10:01 AM

With the exception of Paladins, and a few things on the Good/Evil axis, I ditched alignment restrictions the same time I ditched multiclassing restrictions, and dumped them in the same bin as AD&D race, class and level restrictions when I played that.

Telonius

2012-01-24, 10:04 AM

The basic idea of a monk is a person who has applied self-discipline to better themselves. Being lawful is key to that.

I'd disagree. A master spy or a legendary pickpocket both have to apply self-discipline to get better at what they do. That doesn't make them generally lawful in their outlook, just specifically focused and diligent.

A barabrian has to let themselves go into a rage, which is a very chaotic state of mind, freeing themselves from rigid control. This is in direct conflict with being lawful.

Imagine a king's guard who is utterly dedicated to his lord. He's trained as a "berserker" (common meaning not class), and is expected to be the last line of defense of his lord, recklessly and relentlessly attacking anyone who threatens the king, even at the expense of his own life. He's trained his whole life for this one purpose, neglecting even learning how to read; instead it's been sword- and endurance-training from dawn to dusk, until he can withstand things that a would fell a normal person. He will follow his orders without question. This sort of character appears quite often in fantasy literature. How would you represent that in game mechanics, if not as a Lawful Barbarian?

The very idea of the knight is that they have dedicated themselves to a lord, and follow codes of chivalry and conduct.
One idea of a knight is that they're dedicated to the chivalric code. What do you do with a character who's charismatic and strong enough to do all the things the Knight class could do, but doesn't hold to the knightly ideals, not opposed to cheating to win, or doesn't accept a lord? Somebody like Sir Gawain, or Lu Bu, or other tricksters that are skilled with arms and armor, but have forsaken the typical knightly ethic.

PersonMan

2012-01-24, 11:37 AM

How do you get that to be lawful? I'd say killing sleeping victims, even if evil is CN more likely.

"I always kill my victims in the most efficient way possible, preferrably when they're asleep", part of the code of conduct of Mr. Example. Mr. Example has used the same method of sneaking into someone's room and then using a specific technique (requiring precisely 18 seconds of focus to prepare) for about 7 years now. Why is Mr. Example Chaotic for killing his victims in their sleep? Just because it goes against a fairly common set of rules for 'fair fighting'? But his code says it's best to kill people in their sleep. Mr. Example is Lawful for following this code, right?

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 11:48 AM

Mystify

2012-01-24, 12:19 PM

Because he's breaking the law? I base this solely on the fact that the example given by Panaikhan does imply acting in a world leaning towards good, and seemingly with some Law (evil persons in place of Power). Killing people in their sleep is seldom in line with the law: denouncing them and letting them face justice is.
The character was however following his/hers conscience, to the extreme.
Being lawful doesn't mean you can't break the law. It just means you have A code that you follow. This can be the law of the land, but there doesn't have to be any relation. A paladin entering the underdark is not going to conform to drow laws, since they violate his own code.

I'd disagree. A master spy or a legendary pickpocket both have to apply self-discipline to get better at what they do. That doesn't make them generally lawful in their outlook, just specifically focused and diligent.

There is an order of magnitude between "I am a highly trained individual" and "I have the unwavering discipline of the monk". Monks are holding themselves to precise ideals. There is self-discipline, and then there is the absolute focus of the monk. Their discipline is so extreme it allows them to resist enchantment effects.

Imagine a king's guard who is utterly dedicated to his lord. He's trained as a "berserker" (common meaning not class), and is expected to be the last line of defense of his lord, recklessly and relentlessly attacking anyone who threatens the king, even at the expense of his own life. He's trained his whole life for this one purpose, neglecting even learning how to read; instead it's been sword- and endurance-training from dawn to dusk, until he can withstand things that a would fell a normal person. He will follow his orders without question. This sort of character appears quite often in fantasy literature. How would you represent that in game mechanics, if not as a Lawful Barbarian?

A neutral barbarian. They are balanced, able and willing to follow orders, but still able to let themselves go into a rage.The fact that they are trained to go into a rage shows that their mindset is not completely lawful. If you are really lawful, you wouldn't let go of all your self control on a regular basis. Going into rage is a chaotic act. You can temper that with other aspects of your life and be neutral, but it is not something that coincides with being lawful.
That character may even learn more towards law than chaos, but their rage would hold them from becoming completely lawful. To say you can commit an inherantly chaotic act on a regular basis and still be lawful is like saying you can commit an inherently evil act on a regular basis and still be good. Even if you are performing the evil act for good intentions and you are otherwise invested in good, you are neutral.

One idea of a knight is that they're dedicated to the chivalric code. What do you do with a character who's charismatic and strong enough to do all the things the Knight class could do, but doesn't hold to the knightly ideals, not opposed to cheating to win, or doesn't accept a lord? Somebody like Sir Gawain, or Lu Bu, or other tricksters that are skilled with arms and armor, but have forsaken the typical knightly ethic.

The core idea of the knights challenge is that you are putting your honor on the line, and hence you fight harder for it. If you don't have the lawful backing, you are not really a knight. You are probably a charismatic fighter with armor-based feats and goad.

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 12:29 PM

Imagine a king's guard who is utterly dedicated to his lord. He's trained as a "berserker" (common meaning not class), and is expected to be the last line of defense of his lord, recklessly and relentlessly attacking anyone who threatens the king, even at the expense of his own life. He's trained his whole life for this one purpose, neglecting even learning how to read; instead it's been sword- and endurance-training from dawn to dusk, until he can withstand things that a would fell a normal person. He will follow his orders without question. This sort of character appears quite often in fantasy literature. How would you represent that in game mechanics, if not as a Lawful Barbarian?

Endurance? The barbarian's primary skills are not "endurance". That could be a crusader (Steely Resolve) or a knight (Mettle, Loyal Beyond Death), in fact, a crusader makes more sense than anything. And the fact that he trained so hard he never learned how to read would be a good example of when a character would take the Illiteracy trait (from UA/SRD), rather than it being a part of his class. Barbarians are not illiterate because they focus on training. They are illiterate because they are savage brutes.

One idea of a knight is that they're dedicated to the chivalric code. What do you do with a character who's charismatic and strong enough to do all the things the Knight class could do, but doesn't hold to the knightly ideals, not opposed to cheating to win, or doesn't accept a lord? Somebody like Sir Gawain, or Lu Bu, or other tricksters that are skilled with arms and armor, but have forsaken the typical knightly ethic.

The Complete Warrior book has the ronin for characters like this. Someone who has knight's training, but isn't very "knightly".

Personally, a character who is strong enough to be a knight, skilled with weapons and armor, but not lawful? That sounds like a good old PHB fighter to me.

Denamort

2012-01-24, 01:01 PM

The problem with Alingments is that they are poorly defined.

The "Law vs Chaos" entry in the PH says, regarding Law:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Where is discipline mentioned there? You need discipline to be Honorable, Trustworthy and obey authority, but you don't need to be honorable, trusworthy and obey authority to have a disciplined mind.

The basic is this: A Lawful person believes in "Rules as Written" and a Chaotic person follows "Rules as Intended".
A lawful person reasons like this: "If I break the laws, even if it is for a good cause, then everybody could break the law and shield themselves saying it was for good. For example, If I torture this prisoner to extract information from him many lives could be saved. However, if I justify ethically the torture of people to save lives then a corrupt goberment could do the same and shield themselves saying it's for the good of the people"
A chaotic person reasons like this: "If we follow the laws blindly we promote a society that ignores critical thingking and upholds obidience above what is morally right. When a law goes clearly against what is right, and upholding it would cause more harm than good, then breaking it is the right thing to do"

That's the essence of Law and Chaos. It's undersntandable why someone lawful would be ordered and someone chaotic wouldn't. We associate following the law, being honorable and trustworthy with discipline. But that's not the case. I, for isntance, uphold the lawful view, I believe the laws must be respected and we should strive to have better laws. And I'm also extreamly desorganized, have a terrible memory and lack concentration. I follow the laws to the letter, but I should be branded "Neutral" because my room is a mess?

I can perfectly picture a chaotic Monk. He believes the laws of the land are stupid, finds the bureaucracy of the system tedious and unnecessary and when the time comes to take action he would just go and do what must be done, regardless of what the king ordered. But, he is lawful, because he can sit in silence bellow a waterfall saying "omm".
Or a Bard, a minstrel for the court. He can be honorable, trustworthy and is completely loyal to the king. In battle he sings about the importance of honor and loyalty to the kingdom, and the glory of those that uphold the king's law. He heals, summons celestial beings to fight and buff his companions.
And why is raging an inherently "Chaotic" act. It has nothing to do witht he law. Letting yourself go is against the law, is dishonorable, untrosworthy or disregards authority? Will it cause you to lie or to dishonor tradition? A Barbarian can belong to a tribe and follow anything the elder's command. For example, Zaalbar, from KotOR. His brother is a traitor who is selling his own people into slavery. Zaalbar goes into a frenzy and attacks him. But when his father commands him to leave the village he does, and in twenty years he never comes back. In fact, he only return because your character makes him come.

In my opinion, unless there is clear link between their class abilities and an Alingment and is essential to the class, then there is no reason for an alingment restriction. The Paladin has smite evil, all the good spells, aura of courage. All of it's abilities are related to good. The bard or barbarian, on the other hand, have no such restrictions. The Monk makes it's fist lawful, but that's not essential to the class. If I change every thing the Paladin has for it's evil counterpart then it's clearly no longer a Paladin (and in fact, a Blackguard). The core of the Paladin is lost. If I change the Monks Lawful fist nobody would argue that it's no longer a Monk.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 01:22 PM

The problem with Alingments is that they are poorly defined.

The "Law vs Chaos" entry in the PH says, regarding Law:

Where is discipline mentioned there? You need discipline to be Honorable, Trustworthy and obey authority, but you don't need to be honorable, trusworthy and obey authority to have a disciplined mind.

The basic is this: A Lawful person believes in "Rules as Written" and a Chaotic person follows "Rules as Intended".
A lawful person reasons like this: "If I break the laws, even if it is for a good cause, then everybody could break the law and shield themselves saying it was for good. For example, If I torture this prisoner to extract information from him many lives could be saved. However, if I justify ethically the torture of people to save lives then a corrupt goberment could do the same and shield themselves saying it's for the good of the people"
A chaotic person reasons like this: "If we follow the laws blindly we promote a society that ignores critical thingking and upholds obidience above what is morally right. When a law goes clearly against what is right, and upholding it would cause more harm than good, then breaking it is the right thing to do"

That's the essence of Law and Chaos. It's undersntandable why someone lawful would be ordered and someone chaotic wouldn't. We associate following the law, being honorable and trustworthy with discipline. But that's not the case. I, for isntance, uphold the lawful view, I believe the laws must be respected and we should strive to have better laws. And I'm also extreamly desorganized, have a terrible memory and lack concentration. I follow the laws to the letter, but I should be branded "Neutral" because my room is a mess?

I can perfectly picture a chaotic Monk. He believes the laws of the land are stupid, finds the bureaucracy of the system tedious and unnecessary and when the time comes to take action he would just go and do what must be done, regardless of what the king ordered. But, he is lawful, because he can sit in silence bellow a waterfall saying "omm".
Or a Bard, a minstrel for the court. He can be honorable, trustworthy and is completely loyal to the king. In battle he sings about the importance of honor and loyalty to the kingdom, and the glory of those that uphold the king's law. He heals, summons celestial beings to fight and buff his companions.
And why is raging an inherently "Chaotic" act. It has nothing to do witht he law. Letting yourself go is against the law, is dishonorable, untrosworthy or disregards authority? Will it cause you to lie or to dishonor tradition? A Barbarian can belong to a tribe and follow anything the elder's command. For example, Zaalbar, from KotOR. His brother is a traitor who is selling his own people into slavery. Zaalbar goes into a frenzy and attacks him. But when his father commands him to leave the village he does, and in twenty years he never comes back. In fact, he only return because your character makes him come.
The definition is not 100% inclusive. You don't see a list of every single thing that would be considered a good, so you shouldn't take that as a list of every single thing that is lawful. It is helping establish the feel.

Lawful has very little to do with "The law", and framing it as such is intentionally misleading. Your "chaotic monk" is not chaotic, his law is just different from the local laws and bureaucracy. I consider myself lawfully aligned, and I despise bureaucracy. As a monk, he has something he is adhering to. Without that, he isn't a monk. You don't sit around and meditate about nothing. You can be lawful and despise the authorities. They could be upholding the wrong laws, for instance. The local authorities say that slavery is normal and to be expected. Your code is against slavery. Hence, you are pro-freedom but still lawful. You still think that there needs to be strict rules in place to keep people in line and maintain order, but they have to be good laws.

The bard is a more iffy choice, mainly because the bard's alignment restriction makes the least sense. The bard you described is not really anything like the D&D bard, who is a wandering traveler.

Raging is an inherantly chaotic act because you are letting yourself free of all rules and limitations, even self imposed ones. You are screaming, running around and mindlessly smashing everything. That is the very poster child of chaos.

Telonius

2012-01-24, 01:24 PM

Endurance? The barbarian's primary skills are not "endurance". That could be a crusader (Steely Resolve) or a knight (Mettle, Loyal Beyond Death), in fact, a crusader makes more sense than anything. And the fact that he trained so hard he never learned how to read would be a good example of when a character would take the Illiteracy trait (from UA/SRD), rather than it being a part of his class. Barbarians are not illiterate because they focus on training. They are illiterate because they are savage brutes.

d12 hitpoints, damage reduction, good fortitude save, fast movement, higher constitution during rage, and (eventually) "Tireless" rage suggest that enduring pain injury, and the like, is part of the Barbarian schtick.

Tome of Battle classes are generally able to represent a much wider variety of martial character types than Core classes. But if TOB is in play, there's no reason to play a Monk instead of a Swordsage - and Swordsages have no alignment restriction. No reason to play a Fighter or a Knight instead of a Warblade or a Crusader. I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I'm fairly sure none of the three ToB classes are alignment-restricted. (IIRC, Crusader has to pick an alignment and stick with it, but I might be wrong about that).

The Complete Warrior book has the ronin for characters like this. Someone who has knight's training, but isn't very "knightly".

It does, but it's a PrC that's unavailable until BAB 6, and only when the sneaky guy gets caught (exiled by his lord, flees from battle). This also requires all sneaky guys to either be Samurai or get exotic proficiency with the bastard sword. (I imagine a kingdom where samurai are scarce would set up some sort of monitoring program on anyone who asks the weapons-master how to use a bastard sword one-handed).

NeoSeraphi

2012-01-24, 01:37 PM

d12 hitpoints, damage reduction, good fortitude save, fast movement, higher constitution during rage, and (eventually) "Tireless" rage suggest that enduring pain injury, and the like, is part of the Barbarian schtick.

Tome of Battle classes are generally able to represent a much wider variety of martial character types than Core classes. But if TOB is in play, there's no reason to play a Monk instead of a Swordsage - and Swordsages have no alignment restriction. No reason to play a Fighter or a Knight instead of a Warblade or a Crusader. I don't have the books in front of me at the moment, but I'm fairly sure none of the three ToB classes are alignment-restricted. (IIRC, Crusader has to pick an alignment and stick with it, but I might be wrong about that).

There are plenty of good reasons to play a monk over a swordsage. For one, just because a swordsage is allowed doesn't mean that an unarmed swordsage is allowed. Second, even if unarmed swordsage is allowed, it doesn't get the Stunning Fist feat for free or ignore its ridiculous +8 BAB prerequisite, nor does it get 1/day use of that feat. Third, an unarmed swordsage does not have access to the Decisive Strike ACF from the PHB II.

An unarmed swordsage is a good alternative to a monk, but it doesn't let you build an unarmed fighter who uses his fists like a maul instead of a couple of daggers.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to type something else here that was a little more relevant to the point, but I must have skipped ahead and then forgot to come back. Anyway, the Tome of Battle classes are indeed fun to play, and they have very open fluff, so you can play pretty much any type of character you want (except for a true neutral crusader, but I've never met someone who enjoyed playing True Neutral anyway, though I'm sure there are people like that)

So WotC fixed the problem. They removed the alignment restrictions from powerful classes that they basically wrote to fix the weaker classes in the PHB. If you want to play a chaotic monk, you can play a chaos monk, or you can play an unarmed swordsage. Want to be a Chaotic Evil paladin? There's the paladin of slaughter, or you can be a crusader. Want to be a Lawful barbarian? Play a warblade who focuses on the Stone Dragon and Iron Heart disciplines, and have a spellcaster party member cast rage on you when you want to be angry.

It does, but it's a PrC that's unavailable until BAB 6, and only when the sneaky guy gets caught (exiled by his lord, flees from battle). This also requires all sneaky guys to either be Samurai or get exotic proficiency with the bastard sword. (I imagine a kingdom where samurai are scarce would set up some sort of monitoring program on anyone who asks the weapons-master how to use a bastard sword one-handed).

Again, you could just play a fighter. If you're not a knight, and you're not dedicated to a lord, you're a soldier. Which is a fighter.

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 02:16 PM

Mystify, a lawful character would not take breaking the law of a society to which they belong lightly, which is what I was referencing to.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-24, 02:41 PM

I find the idea of a raging barbarian "not having anger management issues" laughable. Sounds to me like people like the Rage abstraction (i.e. just a substitute to quaffing down a shot of Bull's strength and Bear's endurance) without really going for the spirit of the Barbarian.
I have no problem with the alignement system or the restriction on classes. That said, this can be discussed and adapted on a case by case basis should the need arise.

What if you want to play Conan, and yet still feel compelled to use the Barbarian class? Rage doesn't describe what he does, not really... Conan's what, mostly a Rogue, maybe Barbarian 2, maybe a few levels of Fighter?

Denamort

2012-01-24, 02:43 PM

The definition is not 100% inclusive. You don't see a list of every single thing that would be considered a good, so you shouldn't take that as a list of every single thing that is lawful. It is helping establish the feel.

Lawful has very little to do with "The law", and framing it as such is intentionally misleading. Your "chaotic monk" is not chaotic, his law is just different from the local laws and bureaucracy. I consider myself lawfully aligned, and I despise bureaucracy. As a monk, he has something he is adhering to. Without that, he isn't a monk. You don't sit around and meditate about nothing. You can be lawful and despise the authorities. They could be upholding the wrong laws, for instance. The local authorities say that slavery is normal and to be expected. Your code is against slavery. Hence, you are pro-freedom but still lawful. You still think that there needs to be strict rules in place to keep people in line and maintain order, but they have to be good laws.

The bard is a more iffy choice, mainly because the bard's alignment restriction makes the least sense. The bard you described is not really anything like the D&D bard, who is a wandering traveler.

Raging is an inherantly chaotic act because you are letting yourself free of all rules and limitations, even self imposed ones. You are screaming, running around and mindlessly smashing everything. That is the very poster child of chaos.

The traits that you describe aren't mentioned in the definition of lawfulness or anywhere else, except in the Monk character class, that says that "A Monk's training requieres discipline, so he is lawful". A Wizard's training doesn't requiere discipline? They certanly invest more in "Concentration" than the Monk. Yet, they can be Chaotic is they want.
Lawful has to do with respecting authority figures, that clearly relates with the law. How is "He has it's own law" any difirent from being Robin Hood, the prime example of Chaotic Good. A Lawful individual respects the law. If he follows his own code, he is Chaotic. Chaotic characters all have belief, things they think are right and thinks that arent. A Chaotic Good is like Robin Hood, a Chaotic Evil (Or maybe Cahotic Neutral) belief in a "Law of the Jungle", if you are not strong enough to survie you get trample over. If this Monk doesn't obey any authority and only follows his own code of conduct how is he lawful? How do you define lawful, if it's just "Following some belief". Everyone follows a belief, chaotic people are not crazy persons, doing something random just because. If you think the laws have to be in place to keep people in line then you don't break the laws. The lawful person may despise the authorities for making slavery legal, but he won't free the slaves, like Haley does in The Empire of Blood. The lawful person will try to get those laws changed. Durkon is the perfect example of lawful. Roy and Belkar got caught breaking the law, so they were arrested. And he won't help them escape. Everyone lives by their own code, everyone has a view of the world. If Lawful is upholding a code, then what is chaos? Doing random things for no reason? Going by instinct? That's an animal, not a point of view.

The PH describes the bard as a number of things. One is the wandering traveler, but it says they are also explorers and diplomats. A Diplomat serves someone, or at least is hired by someone. And, most importantly, what you describe has nothing to do with his skills. A Bard needs to follow the road, from city to city. He strays from the path 5 feet and he is lost, unless he invest points in the crosclass skill Survival. He can't ride either. He is, in fact, very ill equiped to "Wander". On th other hand, if he wants to convince the King of Somewhere to help the Democracy of Some Place Else, he has all the resources at hand. He can Bluff and use Diplomacy, he has enchantments to sway the king to his favor, he can Perform to get the king in a good mood, he has the many Knowledge he can use to his favor (History to remind the king of an ancient traty with Some Place Else, with Nobility he could Know that the king always listen to his trusted advisor, so gaining the advisors favor is more importantly than convincing the king, an so on). The Wanderer is just one of the possible roles of the Bard, so why should the entire class be restricted to an alingment that doesn't fit the many roles he can take. Especially when the alingment restricts the class to the role to wich it's the most ill equipped.

What you describe is not Rage, is a berserker's frenzy. A Rage is just a state where the Barbarian pushes his body's own limits to become stronger. He uses all of it's strenght in every hit and he forces himself to continue figthing even after he has recieve more damage than what his body can take. This state is so excerting that it makes concentration and precision dificult. For instance, someone is trapped behind a rock, or something heavy. So the barbarina pushes himself to the limit to be able to move the rock. Of course he can't concentrate while doing that, he's not going to be able to solve Algebra problems while trying to lift a rock. But he is not letting himself "free of rules and limitations". A barbarian can end his rage at will, doesn't need to scream or smash thing mindlessly. And most importantly, that is not the "poster child of chaos". Chaos is a ethical stance, not an euphemism for sociopath. I agree that a Berserker cannot be lawful, because someone willing to let himself go to that extent doesn't care about limitations. But this is not the case for the Barbarian.

Frozen_Feet

2012-01-24, 02:51 PM

When looking at classes as lifepaths that reflect in the game, then many alignment restrictions just make sense. There are mutually exclusive skill sets, motivations, moralities and what not that can prevent a person from being everything he wants in the real world, so why not in a game?

Of course, some 3.5 classes are written poorly enough that their restrictions seem stupid from the get go. For example, non-lawful restriction for Bards - historically, bards were teachers and often backbone of their community, a shining example of traits the system considers Lawful. Yet they can't be Lawful because... what? Power of rock? Their burning passion to music prevents them from being committed to social contracts?

So, I have no problem at all with certain classes, skills, or whatever requiring certain traits from a character. If you want to be knight in shining armor, of course I expect you to play your character like a knight in shining armor!

I feel people who are most against them are those who like to stack different abilities like legos. For you, just... forget about classes as written. Use Generic Classes instead, or some point-buy variant for class features. Upwards 50% of 3.5 classes become redundant if you disregard fluff.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 03:02 PM

No, lawful does not have to have anything to do with a nations laws! Does a lawful evil character really care about the law of his good country? No. He may be more willing to use it to his advantage than a chaotic evil person, but he does not have to hold it in high regard or follow it.
Perhaps a better term that would cause much confusion would be order. You have good and evil, order and chaos.

And a frenzy is just a more extreme form of rage. If a frenzy is chaotic, then a rage is still chaotic, but to a lesser extent.

And stop staying that "these things require you to learn a skill, so its just as lawful as monk". Monk is not learning a skill. Monk is following an absolute devotion, mind and body. You can learn to play music by a lawful devotion to practicing every day and going through lessons. Or you can take a looser approach, and simply play around with it. Concern yourself less with reproducing the notes on the page, and more with simply playing and improvising. Its the difference between a violinist and a fiddler. Same instrument, but they approach it in opposite directions, and end up with different results. And the fiddle fits in with the typical bard archetype than a violinist does.

The monk does not necessarily care that you are serving them an eviction notice for their monastary because the local government has decided to seize their land, even if that is their legal right in that society. However, he will not waver from his devotion to monkhood. When he makes a vow, that becomes an immaculate bond. He will not break it except under the most extreme circumstances, and perhaps not even then. If a chaotic rogue makes a deal, he doesn't care about it at all, and will abandon it if it serves them better.

The lawful character does not hold himself in service and loyalty to his lord just because the law says he should be. He holds himself in service because he has pledged his loyalty, and he is true to his word. The lawful character chooses which mantle to pick up, they don't just follow authority because it is authority.

Coidzor

2012-01-24, 03:30 PM

While that is a perfectly permissible playstle, it is not what D&D intends; It has a clear setting, with consistent rules within that setting. the actual settings elaborate on it, but rarely change its fundamental natue, at least not at the class level.

It also serves as a balancing factor to some degree. I've lost track of how many OP optimized builds my friend tried to fly by me that I shot down based on alignment conflicts.

Basically, What I'm saying is that house-ruling alignment restrictions away is perfectly fine, but they do have their place in the system to begin with.

1. Alignment as a source of balance is pretty terrible, especially since the most broken things for wizards don't involve alignment at all.

2. The idea of alignment as a source of balance has to be one of the worst ideas that the designers tried. The Ur-Example of this is the Paladin, who was actually pretty sweet in older editions, and then in 3.X is a joke who falls at the drop of the hat and loses access to his sub-par abilities. A paladin who eats babies isn't going to break the game any more than a paladin who is a boyscout.

You are cheating death by pursuing a path into undeath. That is generally not something nice people do. Though there are archliches, which did do it for noble intents, and are not evil, so the system does support it.

You need to justify your arguments rather than undermine them by acknowledging that it is actually an arbitrary thing. :smallconfused:

Or at least, if you do undermine your own arguments and position, you should probably start rethinking your position. :smalleek:

Gwendol

2012-01-24, 03:43 PM

Who is speaking of national law? Certainly not I. Lawful is the least individualistic of alignments and in the context of the society the character belongs to, a lawful character will strive to conform to law, order, authority, etc. It doesn't have to do with written law or any judiciary system.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 03:43 PM

1. Alignment as a source of balance is pretty terrible, especially since the most broken things for wizards don't involve alignment at all.

2. The idea of alignment as a source of balance has to be one of the worst ideas that the designers tried. The Ur-Example of this is the Paladin, who was actually pretty sweet in older editions, and then in 3.X is a joke who falls at the drop of the hat and loses access to his sub-par abilities. A paladin who eats babies isn't going to break the game any more than a paladin who is a boyscout.

That was a minor sidenote, not a real point. I don't think it really serves as a good balancing factor. It does eliminate some problematic combinations, so its not altogether meaningless, and so I mentioned it.

You need to justify your arguments rather than undermine them by acknowledging that it is actually an arbitrary thing. :smallconfused:

Or at least, if you do undermine your own arguments and position, you should probably start rethinking your position. :smalleek:
I was just passing on what the system said. I would never have added the archlich to the system, but D&D is pretty schizophrenic.

Frozen_Feet

2012-01-24, 03:48 PM

No, lawful does not have to have anything to do with a nations laws!

*ahem*

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Explain to me how the bolded parts have nothing to do with national laws. Yes, the connection is not direct (meaning following laws of the land is not always lawful, and vice versa), but especially "honoring tradition" is pretty tell-tale of giving importance to how things have been done / are being done, ie. law.

There is a strong, indirect connection between Lawful alignment and obeying societal order. If you completely disregard this connection, you get to the point where any character can be "lawful" by following whatever "personal code" or tradition, even when their outward behaviour is anything but! (This is the biggest reason people hold the misconception Rorschach, or just any vigilante, can be lawful despite regularly going against the law.)

Coidzor

2012-01-24, 03:50 PM

That was a minor sidenote, not a real point. I don't think it really serves as a good balancing factor. It does eliminate some problematic combinations, so its not altogether meaningless, and so I mentioned it.

Does it prevent a meaningful amount of rules abuse? Looking at the system, I'd have to say that no, no it does not. So it's effectively meaningless and rather pointless to boot, especially in comparison to actually having designed the system well in the first place.

And once we've accepted that the system is flawed and we have to fix it to our individual tastes, again, the idea of "schizophrenic" fluff as set in stone and needing that stone to be broken first, well, it is rather incongruous.

I was just passing on what the system said. I would never have added the archlich to the system, but D&D is pretty schizophrenic.

And we should accept as unshakeable canon the fluff of a system that even you, who is arguing in favor of this, agrees is schizophrenic, rather than adopting a "take it or leave it" attitude and playing the game in a way that makes sense to us and being free to do so rather than having to jump over the mental hurdle of "houseruling" it to be so?

NNescio

2012-01-24, 04:05 PM

...If you completely disregard this connection, you get to the point where any character can be "lawful" by following whatever "personal code" or tradition, even when their outward behaviour is anything but! (This is the biggest reason people hold the misconception Rorschach, or just any vigilante, can be lawful despite regularly going against the law.)

So Superman can't be Lawful?

--

See, 'though I agree that following laws is a Lawful trait (it's even in the name!), and Lawful characters have a tendency to follow laws, I don't think that it's a misconception to claim that a vigilante can be Lawful, even if he does break certain laws.

(And most PCs are technically vigilantes at some point of their career anyway. And even if there are no laws prohibiting vigilante behaviour, they probably would have broken some laws.)

Personally, I peg Rorschach as Lawful Evil. He is guided, principally, by his unwavering belief in his ideals and principles. He is Kantian ethics taken to an extreme. He believes, vehemently, in retributive justice, that those who have wronged others should be punished in return. And if the government, or nay, the world can't do it, well, screw them, he's gonna do it. Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus.

And Evil, well, he hurts, he oppresses, he kills. Often without remorse. Even if his motives are altruistic, he has crossed the line one too many times.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 04:06 PM

*ahem*

Explain to me how the bolded parts have nothing to do with national laws. Yes, the connection is not direct (meaning following laws of the land is not always lawful, and vice versa), but especially "honoring tradition" is pretty tell-tale of giving importance to how things have been done / are being done, ie. law.

There is a strong, indirect connection between Lawful alignment and obeying societal order. If you completely disregard this connection, you get to the point where any character can be "lawful" by following whatever "personal code" or tradition, even when their outward behaviour is anything but! (This is the biggest reason people hold the misconception Rorschach, or just any vigilante, can be lawful despite regularly going against the law.)

So if the local nation had the tradition of sacrificing innocent people to an evil demon, and it is supported by the state, the lawful good paladin has to go along with it?

And yes, you CAN be lawful by following a personal code. A serial murderer may very well be lawful evil. The systematically choose a victim by specific criteria, kill them in certain ways, undergoing a specific ritual while doing so.Their personal code is evil and opposed to the law, but it is extremely important to them.

Lawfulness taken to the extreme can be a form of OCD. Everything must be in the right place, they must undergo meaningless rituals, and it becomes a serious concern to them if they can't. These have nothing to do with law or tradition, but it is part of their personal code, even if that code makes no sense to anyone else.

This does not mean that you can define anything as a personal code and fly by as lawful. There is a difference between "This is my personal code that I adhere to" and "these are my goals and motivations". Saying "My personal code says to destroy all authority and plunge the word into chaos" is not defining a personal code for a lawful character, it is stating goals for a chaotic character. And if both truly do fit the character, you can declare them neutral. Neutral works just as well for balanced as it does for apathetic.

A lawful character can be concerned with tradition or societal law. In fact, they are more likely to be so concerned. Being concerned with them is a lawful trait. But it is not a 1:1 correlation.

A chaotic character may be a revolutionary or anarchist, and being an anarchist means you are chaotic, but you don't have to be an anarchist to be chaotic.

The alignment system is defined in general terms to give you an idea of what each one means. the exact details of how it applies to a character are left up to people to decide. The alignment system works best when classifying how your characters act rather than when tried to be used as defining their principles.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 04:13 PM

Does it prevent a meaningful amount of rules abuse? Looking at the system, I'd have to say that no, no it does not. So it's effectively meaningless and rather pointless to boot, especially in comparison to actually having designed the system well in the first place.

And once we've accepted that the system is flawed and we have to fix it to our individual tastes, again, the idea of "schizophrenic" fluff as set in stone and needing that stone to be broken first, well, it is rather incongruous.

And we should accept as unshakeable canon the fluff of a system that even you, who is arguing in favor of this, agrees is schizophrenic, rather than adopting a "take it or leave it" attitude and playing the game in a way that makes sense to us and being free to do so rather than having to jump over the mental hurdle of "houseruling" it to be so?
Because, for the most part, it has a clear central base. It is clear what they mean by a barbarian and by a knight, and why they are what they are. It is clear what they mean by a lich as an evil creature defying death through evil means. Yes, its imperfect, and they will occasionally contradict themselves is extra rules, just like the orb spells contradict their own rules of magic.But just because the orb spells contradict their own spellcasting rules and classifications does not mean that you should throw out the spellcasting school system. It just means that the creators of the system are fallible.

Frozen_Feet

2012-01-24, 04:40 PM

So Superman can't be Lawful?

This is either a misinterpretation or a problem with my wording: what I mean is that just because a vigilante has principles, doesn't make them lawful. It's possible for a vigilante to be Lawful, but it requires more than that. For example, Batman in many iterations: he's a masked rich man beating people up in the dead of the night, but he's also in cahoots with the police, and delivers criminals to the court of justice. (There are iterations of Batman that couldn't be called Lawful, but that's because of character drift; Batman in one comic is not the same as in another, meaning trying to fit the characters under same alignment is a fool's errand.)

Incidentally, Superman? In early, golden age stories, I recall him appearing out of nowhere to beat some thugs, then fleeing the police so he wouldn't need to pay for stuff he wrecked. That's not Lawful by a long shot. :smalltongue:

(And yup, most PCs are vigilantes at some point of their careers... most also fill criteria for anti-social personality disorder and can't be called Lawful with good conscience. :smallwink:)

So if the local nation had the tradition of sacrificing innocent people to an evil demon, and it is supported by the state, the lawful good paladin has to go along with it?

Of course not. Not going along with it might not be lawful, but that's fine and dandy since Paladins only auto-fail if they commit evil acts. :smalltongue: Minor nods to neutrality or chaos are not enough to break either their code or requirements of Lawful alignment, since changing alignment needs constantly acting out-of-line.

The rules don't require a Lawful person to always act Lawful to stay that alignment, and same for other alignment. Indeed, neutrality (along both axises) is characterised by doing all sorts of deeds, just not enough and with enough commitment to sway the character to one direction or another.

And yes, you CAN be lawful by following a personal code. A serial murderer may very well be lawful evil. The systematically choose a victim by specific criteria, kill them in certain ways, undergoing a specific ritual while doing so.Their personal code is evil and opposed to the law, but it is extremely important to them.

That doesn't actually tell whether the killer is Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Is he a sanctified executioner or a priest (Lawful), or a criminal sociopath on the run (Chaotic)? Does he follow orders or contracts from other people (Lawful), or scorn them so he can keep doing his own thing (Chaotic)? If he makes a promise to not kill someone, will he keep it (Lawful) or succumb to his urges (Chaotic)? If found out, will he confess (Lawful) or try to lie his way out (Chaotic)? Does he view police as a worthy opponent (Lawful), or try to bribe them so he can get away (Chaotic)? Some combination of Lawful and Chaotic answers (Neutral)?

You see, how important the code is to the killer doesn't matter squat if holding to it makes him constantly lie, break his promises, disobey or disregard societal authority and traditions of everyone else, and not caring if / encouraging others to weasel out of their duties. Those are the things that matter by the rules - not empty ritualism like in OCD. In fact, a person with OCD can be of any alignment.

Denamort

2012-01-24, 04:54 PM

Mistify, what you argue cannot be observed within the rules. You said a Barbarian's Rage is just like a Berserker's Frenzy. But the rules don't support that. You said it's not about law, it's about "Order vs Chaos". But the rules don't say that, they say it's about following the Laws. There are more elements about being lawful than following the laws, but respecting authority is a requirement.
How do you define a "Personal Code". Is batmans "Never kill" a personal code? If I make a bullet point list of Do's and Don'ts I suddenly have a Code of Conduct?

In my opinion the Alingments are poorly defined and pointlesly restrictive. Yes, a Paladin should only be "Lawful Good", because he is a Paladin, is obvious. But, if a player is playing a Paladin is because he want's to be one, he wants to be the Knight in Shinning Amor. You don't need a restriction for that. And if the player starts murdering babies saying "Oh, there is a label in your character sheet that says you can do that" is not going to solve it. If a player wants to break the game being Chaotic Stupid he will choose a wizard or sorcerer, who have no alingment restrictions and can cause much more havoc. The only thing the alingment restrictions cause is that if my bard makes a promise and then has the nerve to keep his word he can no longer level as a bard. Or my Barbarian can't uphold any ideals. Can't my Barbarian refuse to fight someone weak, or unarmed. Can't he choose to fight opponents only face to face, never strike from behind. Can't he uphold his word all the time, follow whatever his elders command?

They bring nothing to the game and create restrictions that limit interesting character concepts. The reason why a Paladin/Dread Necromancer is not posible is not because of alingments restrictions, but because it's stupid. If someone tries to convince you that palying someone who upholds Law, Good and everything that is sacred who at the same time desecrates the bodie of his enemies and turns them into a mockery of life is perfectly reasonable, no amount of alingment restrictions is going to solve that. The problem is with your player who is either extremly stupid or trying to annoy you.

Helldog

2012-01-24, 04:59 PM

but respecting authority is a requirement.
Authority doesn't mean Laws.

If I make a bullet point list of Do's and Don'ts I suddenly have a Code of Conduct?
If there's many of them and you follow them absolutely? Yes.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 05:09 PM

If my interpretation of the alignments is wrong, then how come it matches their alignment restrictions perfectly?

zlefin

2012-01-24, 05:39 PM

given the numerous problems with the alignment system in d&d;
i'd go with the following basics:
if you have tons of splatbooks, use the alignment system, because the splatbooks have made alternate versions of every class for different alignments.
If you don't have splatbooks, just ignore them.

Also, alignment is more of a litmus test for a party than other things; it tests how well the party will generally get along (of course there's a fair bit of individual variation); mixing good and evil often leads to problems. mixing chaos/law less so, especially given how poor the definitions are of law and chaos. a more coherent alignment system would be nice; maybe i'll make one up.

horseboy

2012-01-24, 05:46 PM

I find the idea of a raging barbarian "not having anger management issues" laughable. Sounds to me like people like the Rage abstraction (i.e. just a substitute to quaffing down a shot of Bull's strength and Bear's endurance) without really going for the spirit of the Barbarian.
Hulkamania disagrees.

So if the local nation had the tradition of sacrificing innocent people to an evil demon, and it is supported by the state, the lawful good paladin has to go along with it?
If he's from there, sure. Heck, given the classes Martyr Complex he'd probably volunteer to sacrifice himself for the sake of the rest of the people. It's what they do.

Coidzor

2012-01-24, 05:57 PM

If my interpretation of the alignments is wrong, then how come it matches their alignment restrictions perfectly?

You need an argument more convincing than something that can be replied to in the same manner as a broken clock being right twice a day.

Especially after you admit that the designers didn't really get it right anyway and that they've messed up.

Appeals to authority really don't work when the authority is viewed as discredited. They really, really don't work when the person making the appeal to authority is also actively discrediting them or acknowledging them as discredited, and you've done both.

Mystify

2012-01-24, 11:25 PM

You need an argument more convincing than something that can be replied to in the same manner as a broken clock being right twice a day.

Especially after you admit that the designers didn't really get it right anyway and that they've messed up.

Appeals to authority really don't work when the authority is viewed as discredited. They really, really don't work when the person making the appeal to authority is also actively discrediting them or acknowledging them as discredited, and you've done both.
All I've really said is that people who write splat books have an unfortunate tendency to break the rules of the system. That does not mean the rules of the system are wrong or should be ignored.

sonofzeal

2012-01-24, 11:33 PM

All I've really said is that people who write splat books have an unfortunate tendency to break the rules of the system. That does not mean the rules of the system are wrong or should be ignored.
Perhaps it means that the rules of the system are ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretation. This would explain why different authors contradict each other, and why different posters on these boards do too.

Your interpretation is justifiable from the written text. I'll agree to that. But contrary opinions are also just as justifiable.

Coidzor

2012-01-24, 11:50 PM

All I've really said is that people who write splat books have an unfortunate tendency to break the rules of the system. That does not mean the rules of the system are wrong or should be ignored.

Eh, you've mostly referenced archlichs which are problematic to lay solely at the feet of splat book writers considering their legacy status and the pool of designers who've done those setting books and splats in addition to helping write the editions.

But, really, once you've discredited those old guys who wrote the system when they're writing splat books, you've discredited them in writing the system, so... yeah.

Mystify

2012-01-25, 12:01 AM

Eh, you've mostly referenced archlichs which are problematic to lay solely at the feet of splat book writers considering their legacy status and the pool of designers who've done those setting books and splats in addition to helping write the editions.

But, really, once you've discredited those old guys who wrote the system when they're writing splat books, you've discredited them in writing the system, so... yeah.

If its the same people writing the core system and the splat books I would have expected a much higher degree of consistency in how things work. The plat books contradict the base assumptions of the core ruleset, which is one of the things that tends to lead to overpowered combinations. Ability A implicitly assumes that B will not happen, but Ability C then allows B to happen.

panaikhan

2012-01-25, 08:26 AM

Ok, time to stick my oar in again :smalltongue:

Bards. Personally, I like the Dragon Age interpretation of Bard: A Spy that gathers as much information as possible, and is not above the odd killing or three. This smacks as non-lawful to me.

The Lich argument. Undead = evil. Deathless = good. I'm sure there's a Deathless Lich template somewhere.

Assassins. This can go either way. The act of killing something is not inherently evil (or all PC's would be EVIL). Killing things for the Greater Good is what Paladins are all about.
I would have to look at the character's intentions and methods (although a 'good' assassin would be very difficult to justify, IMHO)

Gwendol

2012-01-25, 08:45 AM

What if you want to play Conan, and yet still feel compelled to use the Barbarian class? Rage doesn't describe what he does, not really... Conan's what, mostly a Rogue, maybe Barbarian 2, maybe a few levels of Fighter?

Are we talking about Conan the Barbarian? The class is pretty much built around being able to play Conan. Although yes, in 3e he would have some levels of rogue.

mikau013

2012-01-25, 10:21 AM

So if the local nation had the tradition of sacrificing innocent people to an evil demon, and it is supported by the state, the lawful good paladin has to go along with it?

If he's from there, sure. Heck, given the classes Martyr Complex he'd probably volunteer to sacrifice himself for the sake of the rest of the people. It's what they do.

Actually a paladin needs to punish those who harm or threaten innocents, so RAW you could argue that a paladin would fall if she'd volunteer to be sacrificed :smalltongue:

Coidzor

2012-01-25, 03:05 PM

Bards. Personally, I like the Dragon Age interpretation of Bard: A Spy that gathers as much information as possible, and is not above the odd killing or three. This smacks as non-lawful to me.

So... you're bringing up a non-D&D example of someone's interpretation of the word-idea of "bard" to justify a hard-restriction in D&D itself. Why?

The Lich argument. Undead = evil. Deathless = good. I'm sure there's a Deathless Lich template somewhere.

Even that's overly simplistic and a later decision that was made if it was actually made and not a coincidence as a result of poking at how negative and positive energy are used. Mostly because you're forgetting about the ghost, which is undead but can be any alignment.

Hell, one can make evil Deathless anyway. And last I checked there was no such "Deathless Lich" template. Indeed, the only template for deathless (rather than specific creatures such as the deathless counselor) that I can recall is the Risen Martyr, which is a side effect of the BoED's bad decision making skills and is a PrC that requires one's character to annihilate itself.

Assassins. This can go either way. The act of killing something is not inherently evil (or all PC's would be EVIL). Killing things for the Greater Good is what Paladins are all about.
I would have to look at the character's intentions and methods (although a 'good' assassin would be very difficult to justify, IMHO)

Never heard of Assassin's Creed, then? I mean, if we're opening up examples from everywhere willy-nilly to justify or refute things in D&D's basic fluff assumptions.

If its the same people writing the core system and the splat books I would have expected a much higher degree of consistency in how things work. The plat books contradict the base assumptions of the core ruleset, which is one of the things that tends to lead to overpowered combinations. Ability A implicitly assumes that B will not happen, but Ability C then allows B to happen.

So you explicitly do not respect their ability to write mechanics because they expanded what characters could do when they realized that doing X thing wasn't that broken but also failed to realize that doing Y or Z or a combination of D, E, and F could be...

But you still think that their fluff should be sacrosanct to the point of stigmatizing changing it or otherwise playing around with it? :smallconfused:

mikau013

2012-01-25, 03:09 PM

Just for fun, I'll throw in this. WotC actually created a Lawful Good succubus paladin.

Even though the srd says this about succubi:

Medium Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Always chaotic evil.

Drelua

2012-01-25, 03:20 PM

Just for fun, I'll throw in this. WotC actually created a Lawful Good succubus paladin.

Even though the srd says this about succubi:

I've been resisting the urge to get involved in another alignment thread, but this seems harmless enough. I'd like to refer you to page 305 in the Monster Manual, which has this to say about Alignment:
Alignment:The creature is born with this alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are are either unique or rare exceptions.
That line seems to be overlooked quite a lot, but RAW clearly says that, well, when it comes to alignment, always doesn't really mean always.

mikau013

2012-01-25, 05:25 PM

Yes I know about that line, the previous was just the best example I could think off.

The problem with that line is that it only raises more questions though.

Gavinfoxx

2012-01-25, 05:32 PM

Are we talking about Conan the Barbarian? The class is pretty much built around being able to play Conan the character that Arnold Schwarzenegger played in that movie that for some reason used the name Conan.

There, FTFY.

Drelua

2012-01-25, 05:35 PM

Yes I know about that line, the previous was just the best example I could think off.

The problem with that line is that it only raises more questions though.

I can't think of any problems with that line. It simply means that nothing is irredeemable, or infallible. Angels are Always Good, but they fall all the time in mythology, that's where Erinyes come from. Why shouldn't the same thing happen to evil creatures? Now, when something says Always Chaotic Evil, I'd bet that in most cases less than 0.01% of those will be Lawful Good, the exact opposite, but they're not exaggerating when they call it Infinite Layers of the Abyss. There is literally infinite succubi, I'd be shocked if one of them somewhere in all of existence wasn't Lawful Good.

mikau013

2012-01-25, 05:43 PM

I can't think of any problems with that line.

So you'd say that lawful good mindless skeletons and zombies are also possible?

Tamer Leon

2012-01-25, 06:15 PM

Simple answer:
Good and Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are all entirely based on perspective.
It's pointless to debate what they mean, because everybody's going to interpret them differently.

Drelua

2012-01-25, 06:39 PM

So you'd say that lawful good mindless skeletons and zombies are also possible?

Yes. A creature that lacks any sort of cognizance could just as easily be benevolent as malevolent. Which is to say that it makes no sense, but that's just how the game works. To me a mindless creature is no more evil than a machine gun turret programmed to shoot anything that moves. How mindless creatures can be evil when animals lack the mental capacity for any alignment is beyond me, but within the reasoning used by the designers, why shouldn't it be possible?

Coidzor

2012-01-25, 07:05 PM

I think that's why it's one of the first things that people look at and either decide the designers were smoking something or that it was a decision simply to throw the Paladin a bone. Depends on how much you're willing to believe they knew the Paladin was bad and deliberately did not change it to something better, mostly.

Laniius

2012-01-25, 07:11 PM

Even if you change how undead work in a setting, even if you say "Okay, you only make walking corpses, not wights or shadows, so you're good"...you're still becoming a lich, which is quite possibly one of the single most evil creatures in the entire game.

Why? Aside from the creation of the phylactery being said to be a horribly evil act. Take that away, and it's just an immortal flesh-challenged spellcaster. Not nice to look at, probably smells, but not necessarily evil.

SirFredgar

2012-01-25, 09:38 PM

Why? Aside from the creation of the phylactery being said to be a horribly evil act. Take that away, and it's just an immortal flesh-challenged spellcaster. Not nice to look at, probably smells, but not necessarily evil.

It's the "unspeakably" evil act of creating a Phylactery that makes the Lich so evil. It's not his intention to become immortal, or undead for that matter, that does so. It's because you have willingly done something so evil they couldn't even speak of it in the templates fluff.

If you wanted to be an "immortal flesh-challenged spellcaster", you could accomplish such at level 3 for 3k gold, a 24 hour ritual, and 2000xp in becomming a Necropolitian.

Edit: My point being: you take away the Phylactery, yes you take away the evil. You also take away the Lich.

Averis Vol

2012-01-25, 10:52 PM

this is a fun thread, really is.

my taking on the undead scenario: undead are inherently evil because because of the magic used to bring them back, not what they do or how they act considering they're mindless. that fault lies with the person who commands them.

on the line of law: people use Monk as an example for law. it explicitly says that MONKS get to follow their own moral code and can stay lawful even if they're code requires that if your not strong enough to defend what you own then you don't deserve it, and they exploit it constantly. everyone else has to pay their taxes and go to school, even the lawful evil cleric. (even though on that part, him following the law is generally just a ruse to hide the corpses of dead animals in his basement.)

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 03:44 AM

There, FTFY.

What? I've read every Conan novel written by Howard and based my observation on that. Besides, I don't get what the point is here: are you arguing that Conan is lawful, or that he really isn't a barbarian?

sonofzeal

2012-01-27, 05:45 AM

What? I've read every Conan novel written by Howard and based my observation on that. Besides, I don't get what the point is here: are you arguing that Conan is lawful, or that he really isn't a barbarian?
I've read several of the novels myself. Honestly, he resembles a strength-based Rogue with some Fighter dips more than a D&D Barbarian, and that's the consensus I've seen on these boards before.

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 06:35 AM

sonofzeal

2012-01-27, 08:00 AM

Yes, but what sets him apart is his animalistic ferocity and instincts. He is often described using likeness to predatory animals (wolf, cat, etc). But absolutely; Conan is certainly not described as a single-class barbarian.

He is chaotic though.
He does get described in terms of predatory animals, but that's poetry*. He certainly has a lot in common with them, but that doesn't make him particularly "bestial" in the way a Barbarian is. He's more like a hunting cat than a wolverine. He's stealthy, cunning, and intelligent in the way he fights. I wouldn't call him "ferocious" though. The blind bestial fury of the Barbarian just doesn't suit him, not as a matter of course at least. He's good, but he's good because he's faster and more cunning and more fit than his opponents, not to mention his obvious talent with weapons of all sorts.

He's a Rogue/Fighter multiclass if he's anything from Core. Maybe a dip into Barbarian. Maybe. But not more than a level or two.

* I almost said "just" poetry, but it's the kind of thing that makes the stories fun to read and doesn't deserve a "just" hung on it.

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 08:12 AM

Frozen_Feet

2012-01-27, 08:23 AM

The problem with that line is that it only raises more questions though.

No, it doesn't. Actions and mindsets indicative of different alignments are right there in the rules. Consistently acting like X makes you X, even if you started out as Y. Then there are Helms of Opposite Alignment and the like, which are fairly straight-forward expections.

So you'd say that lawful good mindless skeletons and zombies are also possible?

Evil, Mindless undead are an expection (in addition to some planar animals): they should be True Neutral (like other Mindless things and things with Int below 3), but the magic animating them is Evil, so they're Evil as well. If there was a Good spell that made them, sure, they could be Good, but there isn't.

sonofzeal

2012-01-27, 08:49 AM

Conan is described as being a barbarian, and in a good way. He is the strongest there is (always), and his eyes are "smoldering" when not fighting, indicating an inner fury ready to be unleashed on the world, which inevitably always happen.
He is fast, immensly strong, relies on instinct more than formal weapons training, displays the "uncanny dodge" ability more than once, etc.

Rage (the ability) isn't blind fury, that's reserved to the frenzied berzerker, it's more about letting go and unleashing your inhibitions, and the barbarian class isn't all about Conan; it has elements of Fafhrd, and of Viking myth.

Playing Conan isn't about playing a straight barbarian, but it sure helps.
In order....

- Anyone can be described as a barbarian. In Conan's case, the term generally has geopolitical/ethnic implications more than anything else.

- You're right, he's strong. More to the point, and using your own word, he's "always" strong. That's a symptom, not of a temporary and intermittent strength boost from Rage, but from really high natural strength. This is a guy who likely started with an 18 in Strength, and bumped it a few times as he leveled. And he could have that just as easily with Rogue as with Barbarian.

- I've rarely seen much "inner fury". Now, this may be a product of me being more familiar with Robert Jordan's work, and with the Dark Horse comic series than Robert E. Howard's originals. Still, everything I can remember shows him being rational as opposed to emotional, cunning as opposed to furious. I've no doubt he's been in situations that have pushed him emotionally as well, but that doesn't seem to be his natural state of being. He's ruled more by his head than by his heart in most of the fiction I've read.

- Rogues get Uncanny Dodge too.

- If anything, I'd say Rage is about adrenal surges. Eh, different perspectives, I guess. But if you think Conan's ability to fight well is dependent on X/day temporary boosts, you've been reading a very different character than I've seen.

Helldog

2012-01-27, 09:03 AM

It's not that Conan ISN'T a Barbarian. It's that he DOESN'T HAVE TO be one and still be true to his image in novels or movies. That's the beauty of refluffing.

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 10:14 AM

I don't think you've read the Conan novels very carefully:

Conan sprang up, his eyes like live coals. So that was Olmec's game, having first used the strangers to destroy his foes! He should have known that something of the sort would be going on in that black-bearded degenerate's mind.

The Cimmerian started toward Tecuhltli with reckless speed. Rapidly he reckoned the numbers of his former allies. Only twenty-one, counting Olmec, had survived that fiendish battle in the throne room. Three had died since, which left seventeen enemies with which to reckon. In his rage Conan felt capable of accounting for the whole clan single-handed.

But the innate craft of the wilderness rose to guide his berserk rage. He remembered Techotl's warning of an ambush. It was quite probable that the prince would make such provisions, on the chance that Topal might have failed to carry out his order. Olmec would be expecting him to return by the same route he had followed in going to Xotalanc.

I mean, how much more of a raging barbarian features do you need to accept the fact?

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 11:41 AM

Note:
The excerpt above is from a short story I found through Project Gutenberg.org (public domain) and so more or less picked randomly. I would argue that Conan is more barbarian than rogue as he relies more on strength than sneak attack when disposing of his victims. Also some levels of dread pirate.

Talya

2012-01-27, 12:40 PM

The restrictions are fine as part of any campaign setting in which they are incorporated into the "fluff" of the setting. I have no issues with them. But remember that they are nitty gritty details of fluff, and if you're creating a custom setting, there's no reason they need to be followed. Savvy?

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 01:28 PM

I don't think you've read the Conan novels very carefully:

I mean, how much more of a raging barbarian features do you need to accept the fact?

You'd probably need something where he's also not rationally numbering how many people he's going to have to kill and also remembering that he's probably walking into an ambush so he'll need to be tricky.

Mystify

2012-01-27, 01:38 PM

You'd probably need something where he's also not rationally numbering how many people he's going to have to kill and also remembering that he's probably walking into an ambush so he'll need to be tricky.
Does he do that inside of combat? Nobody says a barbarian can't be smart, and nothing says he has to rage during every combat.

Roderick_BR

2012-01-27, 01:41 PM

I just think people don't know how Alignment works, or don't works. It's there to determine part of the "good vs evil" stereotype, but people take it too seriously (if you are alignment x, you can NEVER do whatever, and THOU MUST do there other whatever).

Inside every alignment, you can do several kinds of personalities and archetypes, but some people each alignment has one single fixed way of playing it. I say it's simple: If you are good, you are good, if you are evil, you are evil. If you remain neutral on that, not making an effort in either, you are neutral. Same thing for law/chaos (that can be interpret by either follows/don't follow rules or follow/don't follows plans, check elves, for example, they are chaotic, but very organized themselves, meaning they live by less strict rules, just that).

The one thing I liked they did in 4E, is how True Neutral, instead of that mess from AD&D and 3.x, just means "normal". Play neutral and call it a day. If you are trully devoted to something else, (like a paladin, for example, dedicated in hunting down those that kill and steal innocents) then you move towards good/evil/chaos/law.

Mystify

2012-01-27, 01:48 PM

Kholai

2012-01-27, 02:00 PM

Every other type of behaviour is not really helpful to categorise by, as people keep pointing out (Traditionalists can't be moody and flighty? Free spirits can't be brave and loyal?). They tried to lump too many things into them without thinking and muddied the issue for everyone.

So to me, this is the only exclusive aspect in the Law/Chaos axis: Consistency, and when you simplify it to that, with everything else as window dressing, it becomes a lot less onerous.

Even then, people aren't absolutes. A chaotic person is not flipping a coin on which side of the bed they get out in the morning, or randomly decide to break or obey a law on different days. A lawful person isn't going to automatically do the same thing every day, and most definitely isn't, as someone in this thread suggested, "bound to keep their promises". Lawful people may be whimsical, Chaotic people may be solid and dependable. You're trending your character, very, very loosely nothing more, nothing less.

That said, for me, the way I view law/chaos, fluffwise:

Most Monks probably are Lawful - they're relatively consistent in their behaviour: Meditation, practice, shedding worldly attachments and finally attaining nirvana in their own lifetime does take consistency, even if they were a law-breaking sod who never kept a promise in their lives, you'd still expect the class, as a whole, to be populated by a fairly down-to-earth sort.

Could I see a Neutral Monk? Probably, yeah. They'd likely lean towards lawful, and they'd be fairly unusual. It might be hard for them to advance towards the perfect self without a steady mindset, but a lazy Monk who doesn't train much and likes to sleep in rather than hone their body and mind? There's always a fat lazy monk.

Chaotic? Not really, the Monk is Always Lawful. But Always isn't always with people or monsters. It would be harder to attain enlightenment with a clouded mind, but there are some pretty wacky Zen masters in the koans, and headstrong students who don't quite get the whole tranquility schtick. It's even harder, but it's possible.

Paladins are in much the same boat. A Paladin is unquestioning, unwavering goodness. They are honour and duty and they are the good fight personified.

But again, I could see a Paladin who ran very much like a Paladin of Freedom liberating slaves and engaging in guerilla warfare against a corrupt government and I wouldn't for a second think that wasn't LG paladin material - he's being consistent, even if he's breaking every law of the land, he's a champion of virtue, not the local sheriff.

Could I see a Neutral Good Paladin? Actually yes. They don't always swing the same, they're not totally focused, but they're still the living, breathing embodiment of virtue.

Chaotic? Like the Monk, Always Lawful. I could see a naive, fanciful knight who always does the right thing, but again, it's a rare breed compared to the norm.

Could I see a non-good Paladin? Well.... Yeah, actually, though they'd almost definitely have to be Lawful. I'd see them as performing good deeds unwaveringly anyway, but out of duty and habit, not care. They might not even realise their heart's not in it anymore, but the temptation to fall is probably greater for them than ever.

Bards.... Well the problem with bard is that Bards aren't just wandering minstrels. The Celtic bard was a talented warrior, poet, and historian, with a high status in their clan. Should the leader, keeper of the ancient histories and masterful performer be non-lawful? No.
Does the Bard class fit them pretty darn well thank you? Actually yeah it does. A lawful Bard is 100% legitimate, and it's 100% a Bard, wanderlust is not a prerequisite. They're not even "Always chaotic", so Lawful Bards would be far more commonplace than non-Lawful Monks or Paladins.

The same logic should apply to all the classes:

Must be Lawful/Good/Evil/Chaotic/Neutral: Exceptions exist, but they're rare, and only a certain person could be that exception. They'll usually trend towards the appropriate alignment "just because" that's what people with that job do. The further from the norm, the harder it is to fulfil that role and the more trouble they'll have with it.

Any non-Lawful/Good/Evil/Chaotic/Neutral: Exceptions exist, but they're uncommon. It's usually much easier for someone to fit into an abnormal aspect for these classes anyway. Even a cleric out of step with their deity might be a heretic, but still technically preaching a core precept taken to an odd extreme.

If you wanted to use mechanical means to enforce this, you could apply a minor XP penalty, like multiclassing - 10% per step - for as long as they're levelling through that particular class with that particular alignment, since they're working to apply knowledge in a way that doesn't "mesh" well with the ethos of the class and their own world view.

Honestly so long as the theme was solid and looked like a great character, I'd waive it.

The alternative view: Multiclassing.

A multiclass character is not a monk. He is whatever his player imagines him to be. If he is an unarmed combat specialist who trains for a few years as a monk and never really advances past level 2.... Why should he be lawful to do it? Why should he need to go all free love to realise the magic of music as a bard? He really is in a class of his own, with its own class features that just happen to crop up in strange places across several books.

If they want to make their own custom class by dabbling in a few places, then why not? I assume you're making them come up with reasons how they're coming across the knowledge anyway, rather than letting them advance as they will, and if you're not, clearly you don't mind anyway.

The only possible exceptions with multiclassers are things like the Paladin, where the light of his class features sprouts forth from his bottom heart of goodness. Most multiclass folks don't really tend to grab Paladin unless it fits with their theme though.

Lastly, the most important thing to remember is that Fluff is mutable, Mechanics are not. Re-fluffing a class to be mechanically identical but thematically different is not a bad thing, neither is refluffing a mechanically superior class into a mechanically useless one to let a player have a fulfilling time in their team.

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 02:00 PM

...And to bring back the discussion to the topic of the thread; yes, for the barbarian being chaotic is at the core of the class since the rage is part of the barbarians being uninhibited and all that.

As for Conan, why not stop trying to rationalize away the obvious and accept his barbarianism? :smallsmile:

Helldog

2012-01-27, 02:03 PM

As for Conan, why not stop trying to rationalize away the obvious and accept his barbarianism? :smallsmile:
Because, mechannically, he doesn't have to ba a Barbarian?

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 02:39 PM

And his rage...?

Helldog

2012-01-27, 03:05 PM

And his rage...?
Normal attacks fluffed as rage?

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 03:31 PM

I refer back to message #132 then.

Helldog

2012-01-27, 03:43 PM

I refer back to message #132 then.
Read post #133 then.

Mystify

2012-01-27, 03:45 PM

Read post #133 then.
No, what have you done!?!

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 04:05 PM

Helldog

2012-01-27, 04:19 PM

Just read the stories then: Conan regularly describes himself as "uncivilized" and flies into rage in practically every episode. I don't see why there should be such a controversy about him being reasonably well represented by the barbarian class ?
Dude, I'm not saying that he can't be a Barbarian. It's you who are saying that he must be a Barbarian. He doesn't. Other classes can represent him very good as well, if not better.

No, what have you done!?!
What?

Geigan

2012-01-27, 04:22 PM

Read post #133 then.
Hey, no recursion!

Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!
Hey, no recursion!

Helldog

2012-01-27, 04:36 PM

I don't get it.

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 04:40 PM

Does he do that inside of combat? Nobody says a barbarian can't be smart, and nothing says he has to rage during every combat.

Dunno, but showing us a segment where he's not all that clouded and not even in battle doesn't really tell us much.

Which is the point, as an example of a barbarian raging in battle, that passage leaves a lot to be desired.

And aside from spending a rage when the barbarian is low level and not yet strong enough to bend bars on his own natural strength consistently, that's what the barbarian rage in D&D 3e is, and what must be shown in order to connect Conan to the barbarian class.

Geigan

2012-01-27, 04:47 PM

I don't get it.

It's just another cyclical alignment thread. By quoting your own old arguments you are managing recursion rather than the standard repeating old arguments in new ways which is refreshingly stale. We have one every now and then so people who haven't already talked about it get to say what they think about it. Occasionally some of us feel the need to talk about it again because we like to talk about stuff(this is a forum after all). I can't say I've seen anything said about alignment that I haven't seen said before more than once. It killed some time though.:smallwink: Now that I've finished that tangent you may now continue with your regularly scheduled alignment debate.

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 04:51 PM

Then I invite you to read "Queen of the black coast", the first chapter when Conan first meets (and fights) Belit and her pirates. The description of barbarian rage is essentially copied from there.

Sir_Chivalry

2012-01-27, 04:54 PM

Then I invite you to read "Queen of the black coast", the first chapter when Conan first meets (and fights) Belit and her pirates. The description of barbarian rage is essentially copied from there.

On a side note, the only way to stat out King Arthur is to use a paladin. Anyone who doesn't believe me simply needs to go reread everything about him

Coidzor

2012-01-27, 04:56 PM

Helldog

2012-01-27, 05:00 PM

Then I invite you to read "Queen of the black coast", the first chapter when Conan first meets (and fights) Belit and her pirates. The description of barbarian rage is essentially copied from there.
So? There's no proof that his "rage" was an actual rage that gave him strength. Novels tend to overstate with their descriptions of things.

Then why didn't you quote from that passage in the first place? :smallconfused:
Better yet, he should quote a fragment that actually says that Conan got stronger by raging. Because a colorful, poetic description is one thing, but an objective proof the "rage" means something "in-universe" is another.

Mystify

2012-01-27, 05:04 PM

So? There's no proof that his "rage" was an actual rage that gave him strength. Novels tend to overstate with their descriptions of things.
Then when will you ever believe that a rage is a barbarian, strength granting rage? You can dismiss anything as literary license and deny the applicability.

Helldog

2012-01-27, 05:05 PM

Then when will you ever believe that a rage is a barbarian, strength granting rage? You can dismiss anything as literary license and deny the applicability.
See my edit above.

Gwendol

2012-01-27, 05:20 PM

Sir_Chivalry

2012-01-27, 11:03 PM

Bah! Read for yourselves; I'm not prepared to give out Sparknotes of classic Sword and Sorcery stories. You'll probably enjoy them too as they are true classics. Far better than the anemic garbage published by WotC.

Without actually citation of your source, it's your opinion and little else we are going on. And opinion is not enough.

sonofzeal

2012-01-27, 11:07 PM

Bah! Read for yourselves; I'm not prepared to give out Sparknotes of classic Sword and Sorcery stories. You'll probably enjoy them too as they are true classics. Far better than the anemic garbage published by WotC.
I have, and I like them, and still think he's got more in common with a high-Str Rogue than with a Barbarian - although there's certainly elements of both! Really, any Conan build I came up with would probably be fairly heavily multiclassed. That's all I'm saying.

Gwendol

2012-01-28, 07:35 AM

SirFredgar

2012-01-28, 12:22 PM

So the onus is on me then? Strange, since it really should be the other way around: the designers chose to illustrate the surge given by the rage as an increase in strength and con (and the other effects). But sure; I'll dig up some illustrative quotes for you and post them in a separate thread.

Maybe he has whirling frenzy and not standard rage?

Edit: OR: He could be a Cleric of Grom under the effects of persistant divine power and rightous might. (I am probably demonstrating a lack of conan knowledge here.... I've only seen the movies. Decades ago)

Coidzor

2012-01-28, 04:43 PM

So the onus is on me then?

You are the one arguing the point, so, uh, yeah. Why would you ever think otherwise? :smallconfused:

I mean, you used it to illustratea point, but didn't actually pick a pertinent section of text to quote and then got annoyed when this was pointed out.

Just by posting that quote in the first place you at least agreed with the principle.

Darklady2831

2012-01-28, 04:58 PM

Very little is accomplished, in my opinion, by limiting a character concept. Alignment restrictions on classes force a certain type of character (severity of restriction based on interpretation of what the various alignment tags mean) to be represented among the characters who are of that class. Moreover, certain types of character are missing from the general population of a restricted class. Let us, for argument's sake, look at Alric the Barbarian. Alric cannot be these things, either overly or in some cases even a little:

honorable
trustworthy
show obedience to authority
reliable
close-minded
have reactionary adherence to tradition
judgmental
have a lack of the ability to adapt

These traits are taken directly from the section on alignment in the PHB.

There are things I understand, like that the general image of a barbarian is one of an uncultured savage. But all the traits listed above could easily apply to someone raised in a xenophobic tribe.

@ Honorable: Honor comes in many forms, and just being chaotic doesn't mean you'll beat a downed opponent any more than a lawful character would.
@ Trustworthy: lies are implied to be less of a lawful or Chaotic trait, but more an Evil trait. That lying deceiving baron who's got a million and four secrets is lawful evil.
@ show obedience to authority: You're right, generally speaking Chaotic characters don't like to follow strict rules, but that doesn't mean they don't respect the people who made those rules. They just think that sometimes rules are best left as guidelines.
@ Reliable: As I've been pointing out, reliability isn't a trait of law/chaos or good/evil as it is a capacity to do well.
@ Close Minded: Where does it say this? Orcs tend to think that Orcs are the best and everyone else is just there for killing. Sounds close minded to me.
@ have reactionary adherence to tradition: Tradition can come in a lot of forms. a chaotic character might have vastly different traditions than a lawful character, but that doesn't mean they don't "do" tradition.
@ Judgemental: See close minded.
@ have a lack of the ability to adapt: See "Barbarian forced into a strict society with martial law. Won't take long for him to wind up in a prison or worse.

So to me at least, the problem isn't so much alignment restrictions. The problem is that too many people haven't come to the realization that law and chaos, good and evil, are all sides of the same d4. All that really decides one way or the other are motives and methods.