Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Reaper_Monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No, that other place
    Gender
    Male

    Default [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Pre-note: I'm not looking for a debate about alignment which rampages for three pages in an attempt to agree on the true definition on what is and isn't evil. I do however want to hear what you have to say about what you think it means in this context as so to answer my question. So I beg of you all, please don't derail this thread with that debate, there are other threads for that if you want to discuss it again.

    Right, now that is out of the way with, I have a question.

    I am looking into advancing my ogre/fighter/warhulk character (as you can see, not overly smart, but loves to hit things hard), and I stumbled across the Master of Pain in the Quintessential Fighter II book. At first glance it looked perfect, hitting harder than necessary, using exotic weapons (I've an elephant axe) and being able to systematically break down the opponent on the physical level with powerful blows really fitted with the characters feel. The last few levels not so much, but defiantly the ability to hit so hard it does stat damage.

    Much fun. Until I realised I needed to be Evil. Reading over the fluff for the prestige (yes, I did this second) I can see why it has that prerequisite, however, mechanically there isn't much in the fighting technique that is really sadistic and thriving off the bloody messy battle that the fluff suggests it creates.
    The later ability I can see as being slightly more Evil, and I guess ability damage in general is often attributed as an Evil thing. However I don't see how hitting someone so hard that you reduce their strength in the process, to a point where they cant fight back, then tying em up and leaving em alive is an Evil act, which is what this class can do still. I know Good loves to just beat people up with non-lethal damage instead until they are knocked out, but that will still hurt and is still violence etc.

    The upshot of this is, can anyone point me in the direction of a class that does similar, but without needing to be Evil, and can you outline why you have to be Evil to become it?
    If you can identify what makes it Evil, can you suggest alternatives that keep the same rough mechanics, but will allow it to be at least Neutral?
    I am only interested in the first 7 levels (so no Main or Vorpal Strikes, as my character wouldn't fit those) so can all suggestions for alternatives keep that in mind.

    Thanks for any help you can offer =)

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Scourge Maiden of Loviatar from Shining South- you can be outright sadistic about your violence (minimum needed to render foes out of action is not sadistic) without being evil. Can't be Good though- LN at best.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Koth
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Prestige classes tend to be bundled, by default, with a lot of fluff that's partly integrated into the mechanics, usually as race or alignment prerequisites. Both are easily waived if your DM agrees that the class can function without the prepackaged fluff.

    Ability damage definitely isn't evil; just look at Crippling Strike, one of the most basic Rogue abilities.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    There's the Ravager from CWarrior - must be Evil and worship Erynthul, but its only class features are a limited-use melee touch attack of untyped damage, limited-use adding CON damage to a weapon attack, and a capstone of 1/day Phantasmal Killer. Oh, and a Aura of Fear.

    Touch attacks aren't evil, stat damage isn't evil, fear effects aren't evil. But Ravagers must be evil.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    m view was- whatever violence is needed to render foe Out of Action is generally ok- issue is whether you have just cause, not violence. Even non-lethal damage without just cause might be morally wrong.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Orc in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Rule 0 it. Ask your DM if you can refluff it.
    Spoiler
    Show

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    You're already sticking people with the pointy end of the sword and destroying their brains. Harming them through other means isn't any more evil - I mean, you're aiming to kill them anyways; if that isn't evil, neither is doing anything else to them. Handweave bullcrap alignment requirements (or rather, ask your DM to do it fr you).
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Intentionally and knowingly causing much more pain than necessary, for personal enjoyment, does not exactly scream Good. I would agree with Shining South that you can do that and be Neutral though.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    if you want a true monster in terms of evil, the ravager fits the bill
    from
    EE

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Flickerdart's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest View Post
    if you want a true monster in terms of evil, the ravager fits the bill
    How exactly does it do that? None of the things it does are evil.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    Greater
    \ˈgrā-tər \
    comparative adjective
    1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Artanis View Post
    I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel View Post
    Handweave bullcrap alignment requirements (or rather, ask your DM to do it fr you).
    Or better yet, pick up your dm's hand and flop it around a bit to say he handwaved it away.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper_Monkey View Post
    Pre-note: I'm not looking for a debate about alignment which rampages for three pages in an attempt to agree on the true definition on what is and isn't evil. I do however want to hear what you have to say about what you think it means in this context as so to answer my question. So I beg of you all, please don't derail this thread with that debate, there are other threads for that if you want to discuss it again.

    Right, now that is out of the way with, I have a question.

    I am looking into advancing my ogre/fighter/warhulk character (as you can see, not overly smart, but loves to hit things hard), and I stumbled across the Master of Pain in the Quintessential Fighter II book. At first glance it looked perfect, hitting harder than necessary, using exotic weapons (I've an elephant axe) and being able to systematically break down the opponent on the physical level with powerful blows really fitted with the characters feel. The last few levels not so much, but defiantly the ability to hit so hard it does stat damage.

    Much fun. Until I realised I needed to be Evil. Reading over the fluff for the prestige (yes, I did this second) I can see why it has that prerequisite, however, mechanically there isn't much in the fighting technique that is really sadistic and thriving off the bloody messy battle that the fluff suggests it creates.
    The later ability I can see as being slightly more Evil, and I guess ability damage in general is often attributed as an Evil thing. However I don't see how hitting someone so hard that you reduce their strength in the process, to a point where they cant fight back, then tying em up and leaving em alive is an Evil act, which is what this class can do still. I know Good loves to just beat people up with non-lethal damage instead until they are knocked out, but that will still hurt and is still violence etc.

    The upshot of this is, can anyone point me in the direction of a class that does similar, but without needing to be Evil, and can you outline why you have to be Evil to become it?
    If you can identify what makes it Evil, can you suggest alternatives that keep the same rough mechanics, but will allow it to be at least Neutral?
    I am only interested in the first 7 levels (so no Main or Vorpal Strikes, as my character wouldn't fit those) so can all suggestions for alternatives keep that in mind.

    Thanks for any help you can offer =)
    I would honestly just ask your DM if you can play it as non-evil and maybe rename it. A primitive society like the ogres would consider a crippled enemy good as dead on the battlefield and would probably train its warriors in ways to do it efficiently - disjointing and bone breaking especially. You shatter someones kneecap, they are done with the fight. You would probably want to rename it something less S&M-esque, though.

    As for the morality of crippling versus killing...I will bring up the fact that most societies that brought up martial arts like this in the real world also brought up their counterpart: therapeutic massage. You don't want to imagine an ogre massage parlor. You just don't.
    Last edited by Doomsy; 2008-11-02 at 06:32 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Intentionally and knowingly causing much more pain than necessary, for personal enjoyment, does not exactly scream Good. I would agree with Shining South that you can do that and be Neutral though.
    Intentionally killing things doesn't scream "good" either and good adventurers do it daily. It seems like in D&D, anything is ok as long as it's done to evil things or in self-defense.
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    How exactly does it do that? None of the things it does are evil.
    teh basis of the class is a group dedicated to slaughter and massacures of the worst kind
    from
    EE

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    It is true that worshipping an LE goddess can technically be done while neutral; I don't think this is exactly what you want for your character. It sounds like you aren't into the pain aspect so much as the critical hits aspect. I don't see why one couldn't have a bruiser who cripples his opponent with much more power (but less finesse) than a rogue... that need not be evil at all.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    I figure for them to be good, and not Neutral or worse, the motive can't be revenge, and it can't be profit, it can only be, stopping further evils from being done. BoED supports this.

    and "anything is ok done to evil beings" began to retreat from 3rd ed onward. Stealing from a law-abiding evil person, is evil. Killing them is evil (unless they are directly threatening others, in which case they aren't law-abiding). Torturing them is evil. By BoVD, BoED, and FC2.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2008-11-03 at 09:08 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilElitest View Post
    teh basis of the class is a group dedicated to slaughter and massacures of the worst kind
    from
    EE
    I do believe that you've missed the point of the thread here, EE. We're discussing classes that are supposedly Evil based on their fluff, but if they're disassociated from said fluff, have absolutely nothing that would require them to be evil. The Ravager, as I noted above, is a perfect example of that - none of their abilities are even remotely evil in nature.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    The mechanics aren't, but the names of the mechanics are "cruellest cut" etc. Sure, you could rename every mechanic and remove the fluff prerequisite and the class would be something else, but then its not exactly a ravager, even if it works like one.

    Cruelty in D&D is associated with evil (or, at best, neutrality)

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    No disagreement, but the OP was looking for classes similar to the Master of Pain which are fluffed as Evil and have an Evil requirement without any really Evil class abilities. I don't own Quintessential Fighter, but the Ravager sounded like a really good match for those qualifications.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Scourge Maiden from Shining south, Crimson Scourge from Cityscape- are both pain-centric without being Always Evil.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Reaper_Monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    No, that other place
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Thank you all for your replies, they have been very helpful in pushing the non-evil theme. Luckily I've managed to condition a handwave, and also incorporate such very useful features such as changing the names so they are less S&M like, and have the ability to break knees =D (thank you very much for suggesting these Doomsy)

    This is the first draft for the prestige, there might be smaller things to come to fill in those two dead levels, as dead levels are the bain of all levelers, and its generally been agreed that something minor can fill that void. Although this should go into the homebrew section, I'm not sure if its finished, so if people can cast an eye over it and see what they thinks now?

    Master of Might

    Insert non "S&M" fluff here

    Requirements
    To qualify to become a master of might, a character must fulfill all the following criteria:
    Alignment: Any non-good.
    Base Attack Bonus: +9.
    Skills: Heal 6 ranks.
    Feats: Combat Expertise, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Power Attack, Improved Critical, Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Focus.
    Special: Must have at least 19 strength.

    Hit Die: d10.
    Skill Points at Each Level: 2 + Int modifier.

    Class Skills: The master of might’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str). See Chapter 4: Skills in Core Rulebook I for skill descriptions.

    Table: The Master of Might
    {table="head"]Class Level|Base Attack|Fort|Ref|Will|Special

    1st|+1|+2|+0|+0| Brutal strike +1d4
    2nd|+2|+3|+0|+0| Tendon snap
    3rd|+3|+3|+1|+1|
    4th|+4|+4|+1|+1| Bone crush, brutal strike +2d4
    5th|+5|+4|+1|+1| Knee shatter
    6th|+6|+5|+2|+2| Organ rupture
    7th|+7|+5|+2|+2| Brutal strike +3d4
    8th|+8|+6|+2|+2| Skull smash
    9th|+9|+6|+3|+3|
    10th|+10|+7|+3|+3| Nerve stun, Brutal strike +4d4
    [/table]

    Armour and Weapon Proficiency: Masters of pain are proficient with all simple and martial weapons. They are proficient with all types of armour and with shields.

    Brutal strike (Ex): The master of might is an expert in dealing extremely painful wounds by striking much harder than is really necessary. Whenever one of the
    master of might’s weapon attacks exceed his target’s Armour Class by 5 points or more, he deals extra damage. This extra damage is 1d4 at 1st level and it increases by 1d4 every three master of might levels thereafter. Should the character score a critical hit, this extra damage is not multiplied.
    Ranged attacks can count as brutal strikes only if the target is within 30 feet and the weapon enjoys a bonus to damage from Strength. It is impossible to make nonlethal damage with a brutal strike. A master of might can only brutally attack creatures that are susceptible to critical hits. The character must have considerable manoeuvring space to muster the force necessary for a brutal strike, so the master of might cannot make a brutal strike against a creature with any amount of cover bonus to AC. The brutal strike does not stack with the rogue’s sneak attack.

    Tendon snap (Ex): The force that the master of might puts behind his blows is sufficient to cause actual muscle damage if placed correctly. When he reaches 2nd level, the master of might can take one die out of a brutal strike and deal it as Strength damage instead of hit point damage. A maximum of two dice can be made into ability damage with a brutal strike in this way.

    Bone crush (Ex:): At 4th level the master of might can target weak point in bones and literally crush them. He can take out one die of brutal damage and inflict it as Dexterity damage instead of hit point damage. A maximum of two dice can be made into ability damage with a brutal strike in this way.

    Knee shatter (Ex:): At 5th level the master of might may focus his bone crushing blows to disable his enemies movement on the battlefield completely. During any critical hit, he can take out two die of brutal damage and disable a targets leg, dealing +1d4 Dexterity damage in the process instead of hit point damage. The targets speed is also halved if it is a biped, or reduced by 10ft per leg otherwise, the use of this leg can only be regained when the Dexterity damage just dealt is healed. The loss of all legs in this manner reduces movement speed to 5ft, and requires a full-action to move. A maximum of four dice can be made into knee shatters with a brutal strike in this way, thus, a maximum of two legs can be disabled at once.

    Organ rupture (Ex): At 6th level the master of might can cause severe internal haemorrhaging and damage to major organs with a correctly placed hit. He can take out one die of brutal damage and inflict half of its result as Constitution damage instead of hit point damage (rounded up). Only one die can be made into ability damage on a brutal strike in this way.

    Skull smash (Ex): At 8th level the master of might causes concussion and brain damage with well aimed head shots. He can take out two die of brutal damage and instead inflict 1 points of ability damage to Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma instead of hit point damage. A maximum of four dice can be made into ability damage with a brutal strike in this way.

    Nerve stun (Ex): The master of might can hit with such strength that if he hits precisely the right point on his opponent’s body, their nerves are sent into shock, causing them to lose all physical control over their body. On a threat (not generated from a coup de grace), the master of might may declare the confirmation attack roll as a nerve stun, this is taken with a -5 to hit. If he scores a critical, his opponent is paralysed for one round and takes +1d4 points of Constitution damage in the process. Any brutal strike effects that may occur take place normally.
    If the confirmation roll misses, the attack is resolved as a normal attack and the character cannot even apply his brutal strike ability or any ability based off it. The master of might may choose to try for a normal critical hit, applying the regular effects for a successful confirmation roll.
    Last edited by Reaper_Monkey; 2008-11-03 at 04:11 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Banned
     
    EvilElitest's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oh gods i wish i knew
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: [3.5] Alignment Restriction Issues, Does It Need To Be Evil?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Glyphstone View Post
    I do believe that you've missed the point of the thread here, EE. We're discussing classes that are supposedly Evil based on their fluff, but if they're disassociated from said fluff, have absolutely nothing that would require them to be evil. The Ravager, as I noted above, is a perfect example of that - none of their abilities are even remotely evil in nature.
    But it makes sense in context through, swearing their souls to the god of slaughter. i mean, your right, you can take the mechanics away from the fluff, but that isn't the reason why they are evil.
    from
    EE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •