Afflicted Lycanthrope

[Stabbald]

I need help clearing up some rules with afflicted lycanthropy that one of my characters has contracted.

For alignment changes the Dire Rat is listed as Neutral, the Were-Rat is listed as 'Always Lawful Evil', and under preferred alignments it says Chaotic Evil (all of this from the SRD, I don't have the actual books in front of me at the moment). So which is it?

Is there any way of telling if you were bitten by a natural lycanthrope? I'm assuming that it's impossible to tell that you're afflicted until the night of the first full moon. The characters intend to research lycanthropy at a well stocked library in the city and will likely learn about the disease, but have no way of knowing if getting the character 'cured' would have any effect other than to waste their resources.

When do you get the various 'all forms' bonuses? Before or after the first change? It would be a dead giveaway if I gave the character a bonus to wisdom, scent, low light vision, et al for apparently no reason.

Thanks for the help guys, wish the rules were clearer on this.

[Baldin]

Eey,

The srd states the next "no symptoms appear until the first night of the next full moon". In my opinion this means the character doesn't get the benifits nor the nagatives of the curse untill the next full moons happens. So to answer your question, in my opinion, after the first change.

As for the alignment, the alignment in the stat box of the monster is how a DM should handle the creature if he takes the default from the Monster manual(or SRD) however as stated in the next line the alignment can be any the DM thinks right.

Alignment

Any. Noble creatures such as bears, eagles, and lions tend to produce good-aligned lycanthropes. Sinister creatures such as rats, snakes, and wolves tend to produce evil-aligned lycanthropes. This is a reflection of how these animals are perceived, not any innate quality of the animal itself, so the alignment of the animal form can be arbitrarily assigned.

So this means that a wolf can be seen as a noble creature aswell and thereby been given a good alignment.

TL;DR

Alignment:
The alignment in the stat block is to make it easy for the DM to pick a lycan if he needs one in his compaign and also what the most common alignment is for such creatures.

The alignment however can be different if the DM thinks it apropriate.

When:
All symptoms appear AFTER the next Full moon and thereby after the first change (or during)

cheers
Baldin

PS. the above info is how i read it nothing "Official"

[Gwendol]

Yes, but since this is an affliction, the first change is involuntary and the character temporarily becomes an NPC and assumes the alignement of the animal form.

I'd check the PHB or DMG for a second opinion of the wererat alignement, but based on standard procedures I'd go with the text in the statblock over the summary table. Dire rats are thus Lawful evil, and the afflicted character risks assuming that alignement as well.

[Pilo]

Well afflicted were-rats is chaotic evil, the monster in the MM is an natural were-rat so he is not affected by alignment change.

SRD is quite clear of what happends after:


Lycanthropy As An Affliction

When a character contracts lycanthropy through a lycanthrope’s bite (see above), no symptoms appear until the first night of the next full moon. On that night, the afflicted character involuntarily assumes animal form and forgets his or her own identity, temporarily becoming an NPC. The character remains in animal form, assuming the appropriate alignment, until the next dawn.

The character’s actions during this first episode are dictated by the alignment of its animal form. The character remembers nothing about the entire episode (or subsequent episodes) unless he succeeds on a DC 15 Wisdom check, in which case he becomes aware of his lycanthropic condition.

Thereafter, the character is subject to involuntary transformation under the full moon and whenever damaged in combat. He or she feels an overwhelming rage building up and must succeed on a Control Shape check (see below) to resist changing into animal form. Any player character not yet aware of his or her lycanthropic condition temporarily becomes an NPC during an involuntary change, and acts according to the alignment of his or her animal form.

A character with awareness of his condition retains his identity and does not lose control of his actions if he changes. However, each time he changes to his animal form, he must make a Will save (DC 15 + number of times he has been in animal form) or permanently assume the alignment of his animal form in all shapes.

Once a character becomes aware of his affliction, he can now voluntarily attempt to change to animal or hybrid form, using the appropriate Control Shape check DC. An attempt is a standard action and can be made each round. Any voluntary change to animal or hybrid form immediately and permanently changes the character’s alignment to that of the appropriate lycanthrope.
(sources : http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm)

[Ashtagon]

This is one of those examples of where the alignment system breaks down, and why I prefer to play without alignment.

I prefer to treat the behavioural change from the first transformation as a complex form of insanity (some variety of psychotic rage, a compulsion to obtain fresh meat to eat, mixed with split personality, and post-traumatic amnesia).

One the character is aware of the affliction, he can learn to control it, and retain his normal personality while transformed.

Giving the transformed character a chaotic evil (or whatever) alignment pre-supposes a high level of ethical and moral judgement that isn't really present in all the traditional werewolf stories.

[Baldin]

As for the alignment on the base animal, most animals (all for i know) without a template are neutral.

[Gwendol]

But that is irrelevant for the lycanthropes. They have an alignment separate from the animal.

[Gwendol]

This is one of those examples of where the alignment system breaks down, and why I prefer to play without alignment.

I prefer to treat the behavioural change from the first transformation as a complex form of insanity (some variety of psychotic rage, a compulsion to obtain fresh meat to eat, mixed with split personality, and post-traumatic amnesia).

One the character is aware of the affliction, he can learn to control it, and retain his normal personality while transformed.

Giving the transformed character a chaotic evil (or whatever) alignment pre-supposes a high level of ethical and moral judgement that isn't really present in all the traditional werewolf stories.

That sounds like a cop-out to me :-)

A character bitten by a werewolf should fear the monster he/she is risking of becoming, and thus (hopefully) seeking a cure. Or embrace the beast within and becoming a CE werewolf by voluntary making the change.

[Ashtagon]

That sounds like a cop-out to me :-)

A character bitten by a werewolf should fear the monster he/she is risking of becoming, and thus (hopefully) seeking a cure. Or embrace the beast within and becoming a CE werewolf by voluntary making the change.

How is it a cop-out?

In the initial transformation, unless he is extremely strong-willed (makes a save, or whatever it is the lycanthrope mechanics call for), he loses control and becomes a GM character for the duration. Once he knows what's going on, he can either fear the change and seek a cure, or embrace the change and use the power the affliction gives. If he fears it, he can seek to control it or arrange to be imprisoned during full moon nights. If he embraces it, he can seek to control it to better take advantage of the power, or just abandon himself to the animalistic impulses.

Whichever of those four paths are taken, it's more flavourful than "bam. you're chaotic evil now".

[Big Fau]

Or embrace the beast within and becoming a CE werewolf by voluntary making the change.

Or embrace it and use that power to aid the party during combat.


Cause Werewolves make decent Swordsages.

[Gwendol]

The rules for how the lycanthropy afflicts the victim are quite clear. Waving the potential alignement change is a bit of a cop-out as the character thus avoids facing that. The lycanthropy itself offers many powers and advantages. With no penalties, many might see it as a blessing rather than a curse.

[Ashtagon]

The rules for how the lycanthropy afflicts the victim are quite clear. Waving the potential alignement change is a bit of a cop-out as the character thus avoids facing that. The lycanthropy itself offers many powers and advantages. With no penalties, many might see it as a blessing rather than a curse.

I don't 'waive' the alignment change. I replace it with a rather complex set of insanities which reflect the mythlore of the curse.

My house rules assume that alignment in general is not used. If you do use alignment (your choice of course, but not something I play with), then the way I handle lycanthropy affliction probably won't work for you.

[Gwendol]

Ah, well if you don't play with alignment then naturally that part of the transformation has no meaning.

[Big Fau]

The rules for how the lycanthropy afflicts the victim are quite clear. Waving the potential alignement change is a bit of a cop-out as the character thus avoids facing that. The lycanthropy itself offers many powers and advantages. With no penalties, many might see it as a blessing rather than a curse.

It just makes no sense for the afflicted lycan to become evil permanently when he voluntarily changes, even if that transformation is to protect the innocent.


And the alignment penalty is not much of a penalty for certain characters. Calling it a balancing drawback is absurd, unless you automatically NPC any character who becomes evil for any reason (in which case why did you use a Lycanthrope unless you were purposefully trying to remove a character from the campaign?).

[Gwendol]

I think it makes perfect sense: giving in to the beast within and all that.

[Particle_Man]

For alignment changes the Dire Rat is listed as Neutral, the Were-Rat is listed as 'Always Lawful Evil', and under preferred alignments it says Chaotic Evil (all of this from the SRD, I don't have the actual books in front of me at the moment). So which is it?

I don't get where you are getting the Chaotic Evil part from unless you are reading under the werewolf description. As for the dire rat alignment it is irrelevant; ignore it.

Basically, once you change form voluntarily, your character permanently becomes Lawful Evil. If you change form involuntarily then you make a (DC 15 + # of previous changes to animal form) will save or permanently become Lawful Evil.

Mind you, this is D&D and there are likely various magical ways to change your alignment again from "permanently lawful evil" to "permanently something else". Is there any particular alignment you are shooting for?

[Stabbald]

I don't get where you are getting the Chaotic Evil part from unless you are reading under the werewolf description. As for the dire rat alignment it is irrelevant; ignore it.

The preferred chaotic evil part comes from the 'd20srd.org' site. I've also double checked the MM1 and it's on page 178.

That is possibly a typo as it doesn't make any sense.

The confusion comes from the fact that by RAW the text says that they 'permanently assume the alignment of his animal form', which reads to me as either meaning the Dire-Rat animal or the Dire-Rat mode of the Were-Rat. They are listed as 'Always neutral' and 'Always lawful evil' respectively.

From what I've read, I currently assume that you're supposed to use the lawful evil alignment.

Ashtagon, thanks for the interesting reply. I personally hate the alignment system, but my players don't so I tend to go with it. Great ideas though and I may hand the player some optional roleplaying ideas to portray the change better and to get the most out of this fairly random occurance.

[Big Fau]

I think it makes perfect sense: giving in to the beast within and all that.

Except that, if changing alignments does not have a class-based drawback (Paladin, Incarnate, Cleric) or a campaign-imposed drawback (such as the DM NPCing any Evil-aligned characters), the entire idea that a Werewolf has to be Chaotic Evil has no meaning even if alignments are in use.

Furthermore, non-Evil lycanthropes exist in many forms of media. Valkenhyn R. Hellsing from BlazBlue, the Companions from Skyrim (although they are very grey); the only reason the alignment restriction is there is because the template is based on werewolves of classical literature, and the alignment shift is a holdover from older editions where players were not allowed to be Evil. Hell, the Shifters from Eberron (or even the lycanthropes that created them) are an example of non-evil lycanthropy, to some extent.


"Giving into the beast" means letting it take over and do as it pleases anyway, which is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about using the transformation as a mechanical boost. The LA and RHD associated with lycanthropy are so high that the template is borderline unplayable, and imposing a pointless restriction (the alignment system) in addition to this huge drawback just seems petty.

[Calanon]

This is one of those examples of where the alignment system breaks down, and why I prefer to play without alignment.

I prefer to treat the behavioural change from the first transformation as a complex form of insanity (some variety of psychotic rage, a compulsion to obtain fresh meat to eat, mixed with split personality, and post-traumatic amnesia).

One the character is aware of the affliction, he can learn to control it, and retain his normal personality while transformed.

Giving the transformed character a chaotic evil (or whatever) alignment pre-supposes a high level of ethical and moral judgement that isn't really present in all the traditional werewolf stories.

I like your Alignment system, now make it into a chart so its easier to understand :smalltongue:

[Namfuak]

There seems to be a slight misinterpretation of alignment here - if a creature is acting purely on instinct, and does not have the mental capability to tell right from wrong, they are not evil, they are neutral (hence why animals are usually neutral, unless they have an intelligence of above 2). If someone unwillingly "gives in to the beast within," they did not choose to give up their mental facilities, and do not have the mental capability to choose what they do according to morals, and therefore are neutral for the duration of the first turning. After that, if they willingly allow themselves to lose their ability to act morally, or are still able to do so and choose to act in an evil manner, then they are evil.

[Particle_Man]

The preferred chaotic evil part comes from the 'd20srd.org' site. I've also double checked the MM1 and it's on page 178.

Well whaddaya know, I never noticed that. Well, I guess this is one of those chart vs. text, chart probably wrong kinds of things but it is weird.

If it helps, the wererats are probably based upon Fritz Lieber's Fafrd and Gray Mouser adventures with rat-worsphipping people that turned into rats, summoned rats, etc. I could see them as pretty organized so LE seems like a pretty good fit. I think Gray Mouser bedded the rat queen before the shenanigans. Might have been Fafrd. Its been a while. :)

[Ashtagon]

There seems to be a slight misinterpretation of alignment here - if a creature is acting purely on instinct, and does not have the mental capability to tell right from wrong, they are not evil, they are neutral (hence why animals are usually neutral, unless they have an intelligence of above 2). If someone unwillingly "gives in to the beast within," they did not choose to give up their mental facilities, and do not have the mental capability to choose what they do according to morals, and therefore are neutral for the duration of the first turning. After that, if they willingly allow themselves to lose their ability to act morally, or are still able to do so and choose to act in an evil manner, then they are evil.

I disagree.

Either you physically transform or you don't Either way, physical form (and the perceived mechanical benefits it brings) have no effect of ability to make moral or ethical judgements, so shouldn't affect alignment.

And either you mentally transform or you don't. If you mentally transform, you have lost your own higher reasoning, and so can't reasonably be held accountable for your actions; you're no more chaotic evil than a wild animal or a clinically insane person who has lost all higher reasoning functions.

If you transform physically but not mentally, and then go on to commit "chaotic evil" actions (using the lycanthropy as a false alibi), then yes, that calls for an alignment shift, exactly as if it was any other situation in which you had committed such acts without lycanthropy being part of the equation.

This is why I prefer to treat it as a form of insanity rather than an alignment shift.