PDA

View Full Version : Alignment restriction feats



hamstard4ever
2007-12-09, 06:04 PM
Like many people, I don't particularly like a lot of alignment restrictions. Some of them are just plain arbitrary and should be tossed outright. However, there are still quite a few alignment restrictions which do make some sense; I can see where they're coming from, but I think they're overly strict in their implementation.

So I had this thought, hey, it would probably be reasonable to allow players to burn a feat to circumvent certain alignment restrictions. That seems too punitive given the limited number of feat slots characters get, though; a player who just had a cool character concept for a chaotic monk or lawful barbarian would be paying heavily without getting much of anything to show for it, while a powergamer might happily cough up a feat in order to pull off some multiclassed monstrosity with conflicting alignment requirements.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I was going for, so I figure that these alignment restriction feats should probably add some minor tangential benefit, not large enough to be a particularly optimal feat choice in and of itself, but just enough that a character actually has something to show other than a wasted feat slot. This represents the fact that such characters are, by nature, exceptional individuals. Your average chaotic-minded person is probably not going to be able to pick up the art of the Monk no matter how hard they try. The few that do manage to reconcile their chaotic outlook with the strict discipline of the Monk, though? That is some serious Zen crap right there, and it should show.

So, just some examples to start things off:

Harmonious Chaos [Alignment]
You have an intuitive understanding of the delicate balance between law and chaos and your role within that balance, able to perceive the patterns that exist even within randomness.
Prerequisites: Chaotic alignment
Benefits: You may freely gain monk levels regardless of your chaotic alignment.

Additionally, your seemingly wild and random movements confound the more rigid thinking of others. Against a lawful targets the DC of your stunning fist ability increases by 1, and you gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls against lawful opponents made as part of a flurry of blows.
Normal: Chaotic characters cannot gain monk levels.*
Special: If you qualify for this feat when leveling up and have a feat choice available to you, or if you are creating a 1st-level character, you can choose to concurrently take a level of monk at the same level that you take this feat.
*I tend to houserule that monks have an alignment requirement of any non-chaotic rather than any lawful, thus neutral monks should not need to take a feat.

Disciplined Rage [Alignment]
You are able to channel your inner fury into a trancelike state of fierce concentration, becoming rigidly focused on the destruction of your enemies.
Prerequisites: Lawful alignment
Benefits: You may freely gain barbarian levels regardless of your lawful alignment and can use the barbarian's rage ability as normal.

Additionally, in your intensely focused state you can avoid the less calculated attacks of others. While raging, you gain a +2 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus on saving throws, cumulative with the normal bonuses and penalties for raging. Both these bonuses apply only against attacks made or effects created by chaotic creatures.
Normal: Lawful characters cannot gain barbarian levels and are unable to rage.
Special: If you qualify for this feat when leveling up and have a feat choice available to you, or if you are creating a 1st-level character, you can choose to concurrently take a level of barbarian at the same level that you take this feat.

Moral Killer [Alignment]
Though you have a great respect for life, you understand that sometimes it is necessary to kill to save the lives of others. It is a terrible burden, but you are willing to shoulder it so that others don't have to.
Prerequisites: Good alignment
Benefits: You may freely gain assassin levels regardless of your good alignment.

Additionally, the strength of your conviction lends your attacks a terrible potency against the less pure of heart. Against evil enemies the DC of your death attack increases by 1, and you gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls when sneak attacking evil opponents.
Normal: Good characters cannot gain assassin levels.*
Special: If you qualify for this feat when leveling up and have a feat choice available to you, you can choose to concurrently take a level of assassin at the same level that you take this feat.
*I tend to houserule that assassins have an alignment requirement of any non-good rather than any evil, thus neutral assassins should not need to take a feat.

Liberated Champion [Alignment]
Where others rely on adherence to strict ethical codes to keep them from straying from virtue, you have the sheer drive and zeal to remain committed to the cause of good without limiting yourself to arbitrary rules.
Prerequisites: Non-lawful alignment
Benefits: You may freely gain paladin levels regardless of your non-lawful alignment and are not subject to loss of paladin abilities for your non-lawful alignment or actions. You are still subject to other aspects of the paladin's code.

Additionally, your individualistic sense of justice lends you strength against tyranny and coercion. You and all allies affected by your aura of courage gain a +4 morale bonus on saves against compulsion effects.

You lose the following spells from your paladin spell list: detect chaos, protection from chaos, magic circle against chaos, dispel chaos. In their place, add the following spells to your spell list: detect law, protection from law, magic circle against law, dispel law.
Normal: Non-lawful characters cannot gain paladin levels and lose all paladin abilities.
Special: If you qualify for this feat when leveling up and have a feat choice available to you, or if you are creating a 1st-level character, you can choose to concurrently take a level of paladin at the same level that you take this feat.

Tarnished Champion [Alignment]
In spite of your moral shortcomings, you have been chosen by celestial forces for reasons you do not understand for a destiny you cannot comprehend, sworn to service of an ideal you struggle in vain to live up to.
Prerequisites: Lawful neutral, neutral, or chaotic neutral alignment
Benefits: You may freely gain paladin levels regardless of your non-good alignment and are not subject to loss of paladin abilities for your non-good alignment or actions. Small acts or associations of evil consistent with a neutral alignment will not cause you to lose paladin abilities, but you are otherwise subject to the paladin's code of conduct and lose all paladin abilities if your alignment becomes evil or if you commit a grossly uncharacteristic act of evil.

Additionally, your lack of conviction gives you a somewhat more intuitive understanding of evil. When using your smite evil ability you may add your Wisdom modifier in addition to your Charisma modifier as a bonus on your attack roll.
Normal: Non-good characters cannot gain paladin levels and lose all paladin abilities. A paladin who willfully commits even a minor evil act is subject to loss of paladin abilities.
Special: If you qualify for this feat when leveling up and have a feat choice available to you, or if you are creating a 1st-level character, you can choose to concurrently take a level of paladin at the same level that you take this feat.



I don't want to turn this thread into yet another alignment debate, so I will say upfront that I will likely ignore out of hand any arguments about the merits of the alignment system as a whole as well as arguments about the validity of any of the alignment/class combos above. However, any comments about the crunchy bits would be appreciated. The example feats above aren't set in stone ideas; I just made them up to give some idea of the scope I was thinking of. Are any of the example bonuses altogether too small to be remotely worth the feat investment at all? Are any of them so powerful that they completely overshadow characters that meet the normal alignment requirements (doubtful)? I'm also not really certain about the alignment-dependent nature of most of the bonuses; should I keep them, or are the alignment targets too arbitrary and limited?

RTGoodman
2007-12-09, 06:17 PM
I like the idea of a feat like this for Monks and Barbarians, but I don't really think it works for Paladins. Just my opinion, but I think that if you want a non-LG Paladin, you should just go for one of the variants in Unearthed Arcana. However, I can see making a point for at least allowing a Lawful Neutral paladin.

Also, you could throw in one to allow Lawful Bards.

Tequila Sunrise
2007-12-09, 06:18 PM
Even with a secondary benefit, it still sucks to have to take a feat just to play a perfectly reasonable character. You either have to burn your one and only 1st level feat or you have to not play your character the way you want to for 2 levels. It just feels too artificial.

When I DM I waive all base class alignment restrictions right off the bat. Even if you're not quite as liberal as that, you could simply waive alignment restrictions on a case by case basis. That seems a lot simpler and more fair than requiring a feat.

Charlie Kemek
2007-12-09, 06:30 PM
I like the idea of a feat like this for Monks and Barbarians, but I don't really think it works for Paladins. Just my opinion, but I think that if you want a non-LG Paladin, you should just go for one of the variants in Unearthed Arcana. However, I can see making a point for at least allowing a Lawful Neutral paladin.

Also, you could throw in one to allow Lawful Bards.

actually, they have feats like that in complete warrior, for bards, etc, which also allow multiclassing and coming back to monks and paladins, and all.

RTGoodman
2007-12-09, 06:41 PM
actually, they have feats like that in complete warrior, for bards, etc, which also allow multiclassing and coming back to monks and paladins, and all.

Unless I'm thinking of something different, the feats are in Complete Adventurer, but only one of them affects your alignment. The Bard/Paladin one allows you to be a lawful Bard, but you also have to have Paladin levels. And, as far as I remember, the rest say that you have to keep your lawful (good) alignment to keep your Monk (or Paladin) abilities.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-09, 06:54 PM
Even with a secondary benefit, it still sucks to have to take a feat just to play a perfectly reasonable character. You either have to burn your one and only 1st level feat or you have to not play your character the way you want to for 2 levels. It just feels too artificial.

When I DM I waive all base class alignment restrictions right off the bat. Even if you're not quite as liberal as that, you could simply waive alignment restrictions on a case by case basis. That seems a lot simpler and more fair than requiring a feat.

I concede you have a point, and there are some restrictions I'd simply waive too (like tossing the restriction on bards, and loosening some to allow neutrals). For classes with a more strongly aligned theme, though, I don't know. It just feels like there ought to be some sort of mechanical distinction made for characters with alignments that go against the grain of the class.

Of course the other, perhaps superior option would simply be to strip the fluff and create more generalized base classes to begin with so that there would be no possible inconsistency.

Cranglesmack
2007-12-09, 07:04 PM
I rather like the idea of these feats. I enjoy playing unusual characters, and exploring the full extent of each alignment is a big point of fun for me.

Just a few thoughts: I think that you should lose something for working around alignments. I know that this is contrary to your idea of making the feats interesting to both role and roll players, but I think that you've accidentally made all of these more mechanically than narratively pleasing.

The one exception, I believe, is Moral Killer, for the reasons that the bonus is minimal, it applies to a prestige class (which already requires a pretty focused feat selection; now planning to get to the PrC becomes tougher, and that's good), and it has the right flavor/ ("Paladins? They're agents of mercy, at the end of the day. Some people are beyond mercy. I'm the one who deals with them").

Ultimately, I think that it's that these feats apply to base classes that makes them just a bit (un poco, a niblet, a ha' penny) over-powered; there are variant classes or home rules that can get around most of these things and still remain pretty balanced.

The Chaos Monk - loses flurry of blows, gains a random number of extra attacks (potentially many more than a FoB monk). Also, trades in some normal monk abilities for a really cool dazing charge attack and the ability to displace themselves.

The Raging Monk - loses FoB, gains rage (and greater rage at 20th level). Easily played as either lawful or chaotic, as they also give up Still Mind (presumably because rage offers a morale bonus to will saves).

The Holy Liberator - chaotic good "paladin" PrC. Has a nice flavor and cuts back on normal paladin powers as a balance to following no formal code of conduct.

Paladin of Freedom - CG paladin from Unearthed Arcana.

Rage Cleric - loses turn undead, gains rage (has a nice "divine fury" flavor).

Corrupt Avenger - from Heroes of Horror, lets you play a LN "paladin" of sorts who has turned to vengeance against evil rather than the proliferation of good.

Finally, I do like the flavor of the Tarnished Champion, and I would like to recommend a balance: keep the Wis bonus to smite (it makes sense, you have a new "vision" of good-versus-evil), but lose divine health (divine grace is still going to keep your saves strong), and detect evil (though you have a better insight to good and evil, being closer to evil, you must rely upon your sense of judgment and knowledge of universal law to recognize evil).

All in all, not bad work, but I wanted to put in my perspective as someone who likes to optimize toward unusual character concepts, rather than "ideal" characters.

Blue_C.
2007-12-09, 07:40 PM
Warning, rant ahead. Skip to the bottom if you please.

I can sympathize with what you are trying to do here. And as far as they go, these are better attempts than most. However, I have a problem in principle with these kinds of mold-breaking characters, because they seem to have conflicting ideas as to what "Law" and "Chaos" means. That's natural, since the concepts aren't defined terribly well in source materials, but we can see with certain classes, particularly the Monk and the Barbarian (and to a lesser extent, the Bard, but we'll get into that one in a bit) what Law and Chaos is supposed to mean.

Specifically, if a martial character is able to channel his rage into a disiplinced, methodical fighting style, why isn't he a monk? And if a Monk is enlightened enough to see beyond rules and strictures, why can't a reflavored rage ability express it? As for Paladins...even the very name paladin is supposed to represent standing up for all that is righteous and merciful in the world; their class abilities and restrictions support that intent. If you take any of that away, you're creating a different class, in my opinion. (Yes, I'm aware that paladin has other meanings, but feel free to point that out anyways.) To see what mean, check out the Paladin of Slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures). Why on earth is there a code of conduct, and why would they agree to one? They're chaotic evil.

Druid alignments I can live with, since extreme alignments are (in game terms) limited to human perspectives, and are just too far away from an animal mindset for the class abilities to make sense.

I do have a problem with Bard's alignment restriction, because it isn't very flattering to bards. This pigeonholes them into the rapscallion, ne-er-do-well, rake role, and that bothers me. It's applying a twentieth century idea about musicians and performance artists onto a game that doesn't need it, much like the idea that druids are the defenders of nature (in the DnD setting, Momma Nature not only has the upper hand but is bottom dealing to boot). I think I can see what they're getting at with it, I just don't like it.

/rant

I do like the Moral killer feat. Actually, I like all of them. As I said before, they are better than usual examples of this sort of attempt, and the additional abilities make sense, given the prerequisites. I'd change the Tarnished Champion ability to give a bonus to hit, not damage, but that's just me.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-09, 07:52 PM
Just a few thoughts: I think that you should lose something for working around alignments.

So do I (otherwise we'd be up to our eyebrows in Good assassins, Lawful barbarians, Chaotic monks, etc.; depending on how flexible you are on alignment questions this may or may not be acceptable).

Feats are a huge investment, and you're getting a rather smallish benefit of very limited application (in particular, note that in almost all cases the bonuses apply only against a specific alignment) compared to what you could be getting with other options. I mean, you cited Moral Killer as having minimal benefits, but the benefits are directly comparable to Harmonious Chaos and only slightly less comparable to Disciplined Rage. Looking back I admit I might have gone slightly overboard on that one; my justification in giving +2's was because it only applied during rage itself, but since rage is sort of the barbarian's ground state of being this probably isn't enough of a limitation to justify bumping it up to +2. Still, +2 to AC and all saves, while raging, against attacks from chaotic enemies only, is not a very optimal feat choice. It looks pretty decent when compared to things like +1 AC (Dodge feat) to a single enemy at a time or +2 to a single save (Iron Will etc.), but these things are also not optimal feat choices.


I know that this is contrary to your idea of making the feats interesting to both role and roll players, but I think that you've accidentally made all of these more mechanically than narratively pleasing.

You misunderstand my purpose. The bonuses are actually included largely for the benefit of those players who ignore mechanical advantage in favor of conceptual flavor. There are many feats which are considerably more powerful options than any of these; if someone is willing to forego a powerful feat just to have their oddball alignment choice, they should not have to play an overly crippled character as a result. It is extremely unlikely anyone would ever choose to take one of these feats purely for its secondary mechanical benefit.


Ultimately, I think that it's that these feats apply to base classes that makes them just a bit (un poco, a niblet, a ha' penny) over-powered; there are variant classes or home rules that can get around most of these things and still remain pretty balanced.

The Chaos Monk - loses flurry of blows, gains a random number of extra attacks (potentially many more than a FoB monk). Also, trades in some normal monk abilities for a really cool dazing charge attack and the ability to displace themselves.

The Raging Monk - loses FoB, gains rage (and greater rage at 20th level). Easily played as either lawful or chaotic, as they also give up Still Mind (presumably because rage offers a morale bonus to will saves).

Paladin of Freedom - CG paladin from Unearthed Arcana.

Not familiar with the other variant classes listed, but a character with one of these three variants is going to unequivocably be a more powerful character than one who uses the standard class and takes one of the proposed feats. If nothing else, using the variant class saves the character a feat and that's a big savings, and the monk variants are arguably more powerful than base monk to begin with. I mean, the Liberated Champion one is based directly on the Paladin of Freedom except at the cost of a feat (you do get the minor advantage of having some of the shared benefits of both the standard paladin and Paladin of Freedom's aura abilities, but there's still generally going to be better feats to take).


Finally, I do like the flavor of the Tarnished Champion, and I would like to recommend a balance: keep the Wis bonus to smite (it makes sense, you have a new "vision" of good-versus-evil), but lose divine health (divine grace is still going to keep your saves strong), and detect evil (though you have a better insight to good and evil, being closer to evil, you must rely upon your sense of judgment and knowledge of universal law to recognize evil).

To my eye the Tarnished Champion arguably has the weakest bonus already (which is intentional, since it is the most difficult to justify). You still need Charisma for your other paladin abilities, so Wisdom is still a low priority from an optimization standpoint.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-09, 08:42 PM
That's natural, since the concepts aren't defined terribly well in source materials, but we can see with certain classes, particularly the Monk and the Barbarian (and to a lesser extent, the Bard, but we'll get into that one in a bit) what Law and Chaos is supposed to mean.

I disagree (obviously). What is especially Lawful about hitting people lots of times really fast? What is non-Lawful about wearing armor? Why are unarmed attacks and special monk weapons the only weapons which can be used in a disciplined, methodical style? What makes Strength and Constitution bonuses inherently Chaotic? What does Chaos have to do with being able to withstand huge amounts of physical damage?

Taken as a whole, there are slightly lawful-leaning and chaotic-leaning trends behind the Monk and to a lesser extent the Barbarian, which is part of the reason I am reluctant to simply toss the alignment restrictions altogether (at least not without redoing the classes altogether to be more generic overall). Yes, a chaotic barbarian fist-fighter who comes from a monastic background and is always spouting Zen koan-style words of enlightenment would be a fun and interesting character. So would a similar character with the monk's set of abilities instead of the barbarian's. Barbarian abilities lend themselves slightly better to a conscientiously chaotic character, so I think it is justifiable to have a slight mechanical disincentive for the chaotic monk (hence the feat cost, although as someone else mentioned this might still be too much of a penalty).


As for Paladins...even the very name paladin is supposed to represent standing up for all that is righteous and merciful in the world; their class abilities and restrictions support that intent. If you take any of that away, you're creating a different class, in my opinion. (Yes, I'm aware that paladin has other meanings, but feel free to point that out anyways.) To see what mean, check out the Paladin of Slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures). Why on earth is there a code of conduct, and why would they agree to one? They're chaotic evil.

I'm pretty much with you here (regardless of the other meanings of the word), and this is why I bothered on paladin feats when there already exist tons and tons of variant paladins for other alignments. However, thing is... as I see it standing up for all that is righteous and merciful in the world does not absolutely require a lawful alignment, or even a good one. You can sincerely champion an ideal you yourself do not live up to; it can be intellectually and emotionally draining, and that is represented by the feat cost, but it's still possible and can potentially make for a compelling character.

Blue_C.
2007-12-09, 11:56 PM
You can sincerely champion an ideal you yourself do not live up to

Absolutely. Player characters do it all the time, and it is even more rampant in literature. However, I think that a Paladin's class abilities are supposed to reflect that they do live up to a certain ideal.


it can be intellectually and emotionally draining, and that is represented by the feat cost, but it's still possible and can potentially make for a compelling character.

For me, what makes these characters compelling is that they fight for these ideals in their own style, with methods that wouldn't even occur to the Miko's of the world. Or, as flexible as he is, the Hinjo's. I don't think he'd ever be able to bring himself to lead an underground resistance. Openly challenging Xykon, yes, but running away to fight what and where you can isn't in his nature.


What is non-Lawful about wearing armor?

Hitting things lots of times is for the 1337 players, I'd guess (you have to give them something), and I think the special monk weapons are moronic (I forced my DM to allow daggers for my monk, even wrote a feat for it in case he wanted me to go that route), but not wearing armor and not weilding blades is supposed to represent the incredible self-discipline of an ascetic. You can wear armor and call yourself a Monk. You don't even lose all your class abilities, and you certainly don't have to atone if you succumb to the gentle caress of Elven chain. But it is a failing, and one only your own conscience can assign punishment for.

On the other hand, Rage is about losing control, giving into the basest part of your nature, the fight/flight response (notice barbarians also get fast movement). I think its also suppose to represent an epinephrine jolt, which isn't particularly chaotic, but it is addictive. Barbarians, I've always figured, are supposed to represent the kinds of people that are addicted to thrills and living on the edge, with a bearskin cloth tossed over them to make them "fantasy."

Edit: Ultimately, if you are comfortable with rewriting the rules to allow a neutral evil paladin, then I think these feats are the way to go. Because there are so few feat slots, players will have to think really hard before going against the mold. Feats are great at breaking the rules in a flavorful way, that's what they're for.