PrC Alignment question...

[Scarey Nerd]

OK, my current character is going to be taking the Menacing Brute PrC when he reaches level 6. He is CN, and one of the requirements to take this PrC is to be "any non-good". What I want to know is, what happens if I turn good whilst going through the MB levels?

For instance, I'm a Barbarian5/Menacing Brute3, and I turn CG. Can I just not take levels in MB till I'm N/E again, or would I lose class features, or... RoD doesn't say anything about ex-Menacing Brutes, so I'm unsure.

Thoughts, esteemed Playgrounders?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

This is something that has been debated. According to Complete Warrior (and I think Complete Arcane), if you stop qualifying for a prestige class in that book, you lose its benefits and cannot continue advancing in it. The issue is whether that's the general rule for prestige classes or just those found in that book or note.

At the very least, you probably would not be able to advance the prestige class. I am uncertain on the RAW of it, though.

[KillianHawkeye]

The answer is: Ask your DM.

Alternatively, don't change your alignment.

[Scarey Nerd]

The answer is: Ask your DM.

Alternatively, don't change your alignment.

My DM is unsure, hence I've asked the question

I try not to change my alignment, but apparently if I save X number of little children from burning buildings I'll become good. I don't agree with this particularly, as CN is following one's own moral code, and not always conforming to society, so performing good acts shouldn't make you good, IMO. So, without metagaming, my alignment could swing around without me having much control over it, if that makes sense.

[hamishspence]

Possibilities:

BoED's idea that "good" acts that are in your own self-interest, are Neutral, might help. Saving children is in your interest- because it makes others like you, and that liking may come in handy.

It also suggested that a good character's response to a request for help should not be "what can you pay"- if the character always says this, then even if they take the approach that the possibility of loot from possible enemy is enough to justify helping, they can be Neutral rather than Good.

[Fouredged Sword]

Tell your DM that the answer is whatever he wants it to be. He is the DM. All we here in the forum can do is read the RAW and suggest ways to understand it. If he wants you to be able to do it, let you do it. I would suggest an aplication of the Rule of Cool.

If it would be awsome and enhance your character, then do it.

[2xMachina]

I do good because of my conscience. Since that is in my interest, that is not good.

[hamishspence]

It's ironic that here the objective is to avoid being tagged as Good, whereas a lot of the time, the character's problem is to avoid being tagged as Neutral or Evil.

The paladin adventurer who is greedy and self centred, or the Chaotic Neutral PC who to the DM comes across as CE.

a Neutral character trying to avoid the DM tagging him as Good, is a bit odd.

I do good because of my conscience. Since that is in my interest, that is not good.

That's one way of looking at it. However, if the Good acts involve sacrifice, then "I don't want my conscience to torment me" might not move them all the way to Neutral.

[Scarey Nerd]

A Neutral character trying to avoid the DM tagging him as Good, is a bit odd.

You know what? I'm going to take that as a good thing .

Not Good in the alignment sense...

[hamishspence]

I was actually wondering about an Evil character who is "Evil in Name Only"- they have the evil alignment to gain access to certain feats, spells, PRCs- but they act as heroic and altruistic as the better kind of paladin. Without the hassle of them bullying the other party members into not doing certain things

It might give the DM a headache, but this kind of Token Evil Teammate might be a relief to players who've dealt with PVP Evil types before.

[2xMachina]

You know, what would be fun would be a char that is LG, but insists he is CE.

I'm Chaotic damn it. Freedom to follow a code is what I believe in!
I'm Evil damn it. I only help people cause I'm be unhappy if I didn't. Also, strong takes all. And since I'm stronger, I can stop other (weaker) evils from abusing people, cause I enjoy helping people.

[Optimystik]

a Neutral character trying to avoid the DM tagging him as Good, is a bit odd.

Anima Mage?

Though the adaptation does say the alignment restriction can be done away with.

[hamishspence]

Its more that you often hear of a DM threatening to change a Good (or Neutral) character to Neutral (or Evil) but you hardly ever hear of it happening the other way round.

Where are the horror stories of DMs changing a Dread Necromancer or Hexblade character to Good for their actions, forcing them to lose some of their powers, or cease advancing in the class?

There's quite a lot of "any nongood" classes and PRCs out there though.

Playing a character who is "evil in name only" and who has to commit "evil" acts to stay evil, may end up more Poke the Poodle than Kick the Dog.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph.../PokeThePoodle

[Mystic Muse]

I never got why the fiend blooded PRC required "any nongood" there's nothing that seems to require it being nongood. If they wanted it to matter they should have made it "Chaotic evil only" because that's the only way the alignment restriction makes any sense.

[hamishspence]

Fiend blooded can be descended from devils, yugoloths, etc- they don't have to come from demons.

However- the "Playing a Fiend-Blooded" second mentions good aligned fiend-blooded several times.

"Due to your fiendish lineage, and the questions such lineage inevitably raises, you have gotten used to playing your cards close to your chest. Even if good-aligned, you know the price you might have to pay for someone else's ignorance and often find discretion the better part of valor."

"Good-aligned characters born into a fiend-blooded house typically distance themselves from their more depraved kin"

"Few fiend-blooded abandon this path after having set foot on it, for the lure of self-discovery is great. Nevertheless, some good-aligned fiend-blooded grow uncomfortable with the ways in which they are changing and choose to stop advancing in the class at some point"

This may imply that the "any nongood" doesn't really fit.

[Snake-Aes]

From what I recall, classes whose alignments were part of the source of the power would often drop all the supernatural and spell abilities in case of an alignment conflict, like hexblades and paladins. If part of the Menacing Brute's power is magical or comes from an outside force, it makes sense to drop the non-extraordinary class features.

[Scarey Nerd]

From what I recall, classes whose alignments were part of the source of the power would often drop all the supernatural and spell abilities in case of an alignment conflict, like hexblades and paladins. If part of the Menacing Brute's power is magical or comes from an outside force, it makes sense to drop the non-extraordinary class features.

The Menacing Brute's abilities are purely born from being "street-wise". Their abilities are just enhancements to intimidation, being able to locate items in a city simply by looking around, making it easier to critically injure someone, and a Sneak Attack bonus because of their surprise attacks etc.

Would this then mean that a MB would keep their abilities? They are skills they have learned on the street, losing them just because they are good now wouldn't make sense really.

[Snake-Aes]

Yeah, just damp the advancement then.

[Mystic Muse]

Fiend blooded can be descended from devils, yugoloths, etc- they don't have to come from demons.

Then any evil. The alignment restriction still doesn't make sense.

However- the "Playing a Fiend-Blooded" second mentions good aligned fiend-blooded several times.

"Due to your fiendish lineage, and the questions such lineage inevitably raises, you have gotten used to playing your cards close to your chest. Even if good-aligned, you know the price you might have to pay for someone else's ignorance and often find discretion the better part of valor."

"Good-aligned characters born into a fiend-blooded house typically distance themselves from their more depraved kin"

"Few fiend-blooded abandon this path after having set foot on it, for the lure of self-discovery is great. Nevertheless, some good-aligned fiend-blooded grow uncomfortable with the ways in which they are changing and choose to stop advancing in the class at some point"

This may imply that the "any nongood" doesn't really fit.

You have a good point. If I ever use the wizard I have made I'll try and convince my DM that according to the fluff "any non good" doesn't fit the class.

[Mr.Moron]

House rule out the Alignment requirement.

[Mystic Muse]

House rule out the Alignment requirement, its silly.

When I DM I will. However, I need to convince my DM to houserule it out.

Of course, I can't use the wizard yet anyway.

[DragoonWraith]

House rule out the Alignment requirement.

This, this, a thousand times this.

Alignment restrictions are dumb. The Paladin can kind of justify it, and the classes that require no-neutrality or neutral-on-one-axis sort of make sense, but this one is just dumb.

[Scarey Nerd]

Alignment restrictions are dumb. The Paladin can kind of justify it, and the classes that require no-neutrality or neutral-on-one-axis sort of make sense, but this one is just dumb.

I don't even think the paladin can justify it, I see a Paladin as a champion of a cause or deity: Why should they be an honourable, devout warrior of a good deity? I don't see the need for the Blackguard PrC, it should be taken out along with the Paladin alignment restriction.

[Mystic Muse]

I don't even think the paladin can justify it, I see a Paladin as a champion of a cause or deity: Why should they be an honourable, devout warrior of a good deity? I don't see the need for the Blackguard PrC, it should be taken out along with the Paladin alignment restriction.

Clerics are champions of their deity. Paladins are champions of their alignment.

For example, Moradin decides a couple of giants have to die. No real reason, he just wants them to die. His clerics would have to follow his commands (Unless they wanted to fall.) But the Paladins that worshipped him would have to fight against the clerics (unless they wanted to fall)

However, that's with the standard Paladin. I prefer allowing any alignment on a Paladin.

[hamishspence]

Besides the three variant paladins in Unearthed Arcana, for the other three "corner" alignments, there was Dragon Magazine, which did 8 variant paladins, one for each alignment.

Then there's 4E, which removed alignment restrictions entirely.

So there's quite a bit of precedent for non-LG paladins.

[Scarey Nerd]

Besides the three variant paladins in Unearthed Arcana, for the other three "corner" alignments, there was Dragon Magazine, which did 8 variant paladins, one for each alignment.

Then there's 4E, which removed alignment restrictions entirely.

So there's quite a bit of precedent for non-LG paladins.

Indeed there are variants that overcome this, however it shouldn't really be in the core game, it doesn't make much sense. IMO that is.

[hamishspence]

I think it's a holdover from 1st ed.

[Mr.Moron]

When I DM I will. However, I need to convince my DM to houserule it out.

Of course, I can't use the wizard yet anyway.

Let's pretend your DM is named Carl and is a relatively reasonable person. It should go something like this:

You: Hey Carl, I'd like it if we could drop the alignment requirements on the menacing brute class.
Carl: Why?
You: Well, it just feels a bit restrictive. It's not really going to change how the class plays and as it stands If my character becomes good, he's basically going to become unplayable.
Carl: Wow, that would be a problem.
You: Yeah. The alignment restriction doesn't really add much either, it's not like it's tapping into the lower planes to shoot dark energy bolts or anything. It is just an abstraction that shows what I've learned on the mean streets.
Carl: Well, okay I guess. That's a pretty good argument. Thanks for being straightforward with me on this one.


If Carl is unreasonable, sure it could go badly. In which case, just make a new character should you happen to turn good. Preferably one without silly restrictions Carl is going to try and use to stick-it-to-you.

[Scarey Nerd]

If Carl is unreasonable, sure it could badly. In which case, just make a new character should you happen to turn good. Preferably one without silly restrictions Carl is going to try and use to stick-it-to-you.

...Did anyone else imagine "Carl"'s voice to be identical to the Carl from Llamas In Hats from Filmcow?

I digress. The point is a good one, most reasonable DMs would understand, certainly in this situation, that the alignment restriction is needless.

[Curmudgeon]

OK, my current character is going to be taking the Menacing Brute PrC when he reaches level 6. He is CN, and one of the requirements to take this PrC is to be "any non-good". What I want to know is, what happens if I turn good whilst going through the MB levels?

It's not a Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane prestige class, so you don't lose any abilities from your existing levels. But if you want to enter into a new level of Menacing Brute you're going to need to re-qualify.