Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Need_A_Life 01-23-05, 10:17 AM	I've been one of the people who've believed that the Paladin should be "same as diety or Any Good" and I've also seen no problem with a Chaotic Monk. However I've made a character who ignored alignment restrictions on classes (but not feats) just to experiment. I made an Elan (XPH, non-humanoid ;) ) Vow of Poverty (BoED) Monk 10/Soul Eater 10 (BoVD), and I'm afraid to even try to stage a battle between him and any other class combination, because he'll be impossible to hit and deals 1d10+10 points of damage (intuitive attack, BoED) PLUS bestowing 2 negative levels when using natural weapons PLUS 1 point of extra damage to evil creatures (or 1d4 extra damage against evil undead or outsiders (Sanctify natural weapon)) PLUS Golden Ice (BoED). BTW I have an AC of 44, touch 42, flatfooted 37. I'd need a roll of 16 or better to hit myself!!! :eek: He is only level 20 but I wouldn't be catious setting him up against Demogoron (well maybe not HIM/THEM, but someone like him/them) So is it me or is this a cool/overpowered/weird character, or what?
(Psi)SeveredHead 01-23-05, 11:12 AM	I've been one of the people who've believed that the Paladin should be "same as diety or Any Good" and I've also seen no problem with a Chaotic Monk. However I've made a character who ignored alignment restrictions on classes (but not feats) just to experiment. I made an Elan (XPH, non-humanoid ;) ) Vow of Poverty (BoED) Monk 10/Soul Eater 10 (BoVD), and I'm afraid to even try to stage a battle between him and any other class combination, because he'll be impossible to hit and deals 1d10+10 points of damage (intuitive attack, BoED) PLUS bestowing 2 negative levels when using natural weapons PLUS 1 point of extra damage to evil creatures (or 1d4 extra damage against evil undead or outsiders (Sanctify natural weapon)) PLUS Golden Ice (BoED). BTW I have an AC of 44, touch 42, flatfooted 37. I'd need a roll of 16 or better to hit myself!!! :eek: He is only level 20 but I wouldn't be catious setting him up against Demogoron (well maybe not HIM/THEM, but someone like him/them) So is it me or is this a cool/overpowered/weird character, or what? Perhaps overpowered (VoP should never be allowed near psionics or monks) but I don't know what a Soul Eater or Intuitive Attack... never mind. No, it's not a balancing technique. WotC only tries to do this for BoED and BoVD but it never works. You can play a non-LG paladin with an actual playable code of conduct and the game will actually run more smoothly, without increasing the power of the paladin.
Wil Harvey 01-23-05, 12:02 PM	...deals 1d10+10 points of damage (intuitive attack, BoED) What does Intuitive Attack have to do with how much damage your monk does? Also, how can one character have exalted feats and take 10 levels in a vile prestige class?
Nephlite 01-23-05, 01:41 PM	What does Intuitive Attack have to do with how much damage your monk does? Also, how can one character have exalted feats and take 10 levels in a vile prestige class? THat was why he was asking if alingment restrictions are there for balance. So he showed Exalted character a evil class as an example.
fractal 01-23-05, 02:04 PM	THat was why he was asking if alingment restrictions are there for balance. So he showed Exalted character a evil class as an example. A Hexblade/Paladin/Blackguard, with three times your Charisma bonus to saves vs spells, could also be fun.
Yak of Darkness 01-23-05, 02:14 PM	I doubt that it's so much your ignoring of alignment restrictions that is making this character seem too powerful to you, but your combination of sources. You're using multiple splatbooks to build your character, and you're mixing 3E and 3.5 stuff, to boot. On balance, IMO, WotC has done a good job if everything in any single book is balanced fine with everything else in the same book, as well as the core rules. With the sheer glut of books that come out, I'd wager it damn near impossible to make sure that there are no sick combinations that can be found across *all* of their books. This is doubly true when you're using, aside from the XPH, two books that were never meant to cross paths in one character (the BoED and BoVD). If you can cheese out a nasty combination between those two, it's probably not going to be simply because you ignored alignment. Alignment will be an issue only because you mixed material that the WotC writers never planned on being combined (across an edition upgrade, at that), so there is little to no chance that they checked up on every combination of BoED and BoVD stuff to see if anything looked too sick. On a side note, this is the same reason why I have to roll my eyes every time I see someone say something along the lines of, "I can make a half force dragon voidmind illithid warlock/telepath/mystic theurge/pale master/1st edition bard/power ranger at level 40 who can kill Vecna by sneezing on him, if he has these five items from the Manual of the Planes and this one from a book I haven't read yet but I heard about on this website's previews . . . the warlock is *SO* overpowered." Okay, a little over the top, but not by much compared to some of the convoluted combinations of books that people use to "prove" something's broken. One of the many reasons this game needs DMs is to provide some kind of common sense to the world he's running and the people who live there. You might be able to combine feats and PrCs from a hundred different books to make a broken character, but any DM worth his dice knows how to say, "No."
Wil Harvey 01-23-05, 06:32 PM	THat was why he was asking if alingment restrictions are there for balance. So he showed Exalted character a evil class as an example. Hell, if you're going to ignore restrictions, of course it's going to affect balance. Vow of Poverty is an exalted feat. That means not any character can take that. The character has to be the epitome of good, even when it isn't beneficial. Ignoring that little restriction, like most people who use VoP in various builds do, that alone creates balance issues. I would love to have someone take VoP in my game, because they'd be put through enough hell to almost make them wish they didn't have it. And then if you want to completely throw out all restriction, ye gods. In most cases, alignment restrictions don't matter. But for exalted or vile stuff, they definitely matter. Those feats and prestige classes are slightly more powerful based on the idea that you are putting yourself into some tough situations in order to act the appropriate way. It's the same when people ignore the regional aspect of regional feats in the Realms.
Need_A_Life 01-24-05, 08:44 AM	and you're mixing 3E and 3.5 stuff, to boot I don't think I am (could be wrong though) since I use 3.5 and never used 3.0.... so unless I've accidently bought a 3.0 book its not possible. Hell, if you're going to ignore restrictions, of course it's going to affect balance. Actually I believe that was my point, I am all for chaotic paladins and monks (even neutral assassins) but I tried to take it to an extreme. What does Intuitive Attack have to do with how much damage your monk does? Replaces Strength for Wisdom when you attack.. maybe it was only attack rolls, but anyway thanks to VoP he has 30(!) Wisdom. THat was why he was asking if alingment restrictions are there for balance. So he showed Exalted character a evil class as an example. Thank you very much, that was exactly what I was trying. A Hexblade/Paladin/Blackguard, with three times your Charisma bonus to saves vs spells, could also be fun Haven't read the Hexblade but now that you mention it, they're unnamed bonuses, although you'd be an ex-paladin so it'd only be twice your charisma bonus. I know it might not be the best example but appearantly alignment is a balancing factor in some regards. Just thought that it might be interesting to make that build.
Dunelord 01-24-05, 10:53 AM	It can be a balancing factor, just depends on the class in question. For exsample Clerics and Druids can't cast spells with an alignment desriptor opposite of theirs, which means anyone of those who aren't true neutral spells loose spells from their spell list. As for chaotic monks I don't see them making sence. Neutral yeah, but not chaotic. If you really look at it True Neutral is the most gimpy alignment.
Yak of Darkness 01-24-05, 12:48 PM	Book of Vile Darkness is 3E. Made very soon before the changeover, but still uses 3E rules. Not that it's a huge deal, and I'm really not any kind of expert when it comes to balance between the editions, but I've noticed that 3E/3.5 crossovers tend to come up quite a bit when people are "proving" how broken a feat or PrC is.
Tony Vargas 01-24-05, 01:41 PM	Yes, alignment restrictions are a minor balancing factor. Not in the sense of having to act within the given alignement, though - every character needs to act within his alignment, and most pick alignments they intend to act within, anyway. Alignment restrictsion, like many other balancing factors, limit how often you can access abilities, and how you can combine them. It's harder to combine the abilities of a bard or barbarian with those of a monk or paladin, for instance, because of the conflict in alignment requirements. A Bard/Pally (with CHA-based mind-affecting spells and a CHA bonus to saves), for instance, is difficult to pull off in a way that allows you to 'abuse' that combination for a significant part of you career (you could do a bard10/pally10 - but it'd have to be bard first, then pally, not evenly advancing as you could do with many other classes). There are magical effects that can alter alignment, when means you could lose an ability while your alignement is 'wrong' - that's a legitimate limitation, though not a major one. So ignoring alignment restrictions isn't a great idea, balance-wise.
Need_A_Life 01-28-05, 06:33 AM	Book of Vile Darkness is 3E. Made very soon before the changeover, but still uses 3E rules. Not that it's a huge deal, and I'm really not any kind of expert when it comes to balance between the editions, but I've noticed that 3E/3.5 crossovers tend to come up quite a bit when people are "proving" how broken a feat or PrC is. Thanks! Guess that's why it's so much cooler...
Debonair 01-28-05, 11:43 AM	It's not really a balancing factor, but when it comes to BoVD and BoED, that stuff is for the people who go above and beyond the call of good or evil. Mixing the two books in one character is... just dumb. Forget about how it affects the rules, it shouldn't even be considered.
Reinforcements 01-28-05, 12:10 PM	Alignment restrictions only affect balance insofar as to keep people from multiclassing in certain ways, or taking feats they shouldn't take. A chaotic monk or paladin is no more powerful than a lawful one, so long as the DM keeps the player from doing any crazy class/feat combos because of it. Actually, it's not even a big deal in this case, because it's not as though it's terribly difficult to make a crazy munchkin-y character build without breaking any rules in the first place. The DM should always prevent crazy powergaming - removing alignment restrictions doesn't really change anything. By the way, Vow of Poverty is a bad example, because it comes with a code of conduct in addition to the hard alignment restriction.
deathfromyourmom 01-28-05, 12:30 PM	I've been one of the people who've believed that the Paladin should be "same as diety or Any Good" and I've also seen no problem with a Chaotic Monk. However I've made a character who ignored alignment restrictions on classes (but not feats) just to experiment. I made an Elan (XPH, non-humanoid ;) ) Vow of Poverty (BoED) Monk 10/Soul Eater 10 (BoVD), and I'm afraid to even try to stage a battle between him and any other class combination, because he'll be impossible to hit and deals 1d10+10 points of damage (intuitive attack, BoED) PLUS bestowing 2 negative levels when using natural weapons PLUS 1 point of extra damage to evil creatures (or 1d4 extra damage against evil undead or outsiders (Sanctify natural weapon)) PLUS Golden Ice (BoED). BTW I have an AC of 44, touch 42, flatfooted 37. I'd need a roll of 16 or better to hit myself!!! :eek: He is only level 20 but I wouldn't be catious setting him up against Demogoron (well maybe not HIM/THEM, but someone like him/them) So is it me or is this a cool/overpowered/weird character, or what? even tho i understand that you are trying to overcome allignment restrictions, how can you justify combining an exalted feat (intuitive attack), a ravage like golden ice, and a sanctified weapon with a BoVD PrC? the only reason feats etc like that can be maintained would be by upholding an extremely high moral code. i dont think that would be possible with a PrC like that. allignment based feats and PrCs and all coincide with each other, and when the mix like that, it comes out bizzare and outa whack. i would deffinitely not allow a combination like that in my game. def weird, wouldnt reccommend.
Need_A_Life 01-30-05, 06:37 AM	Somehow I don't seem to be getting this through... I am not scrapping alignment completely (although paladin and monks are really free to do whatever), I was trying to see just how bad this'd be. Why I combined Exalted feats with a Vile PrC is because I wanted to see how broken it would be, and instead of just trying it, become frightened by the power alignment plays, and throw it out I tried to post the mix to start a debate. i would deffinitely not allow a combination like that in my game. def weird, wouldnt reccommend. Okay, that goes without saying. have you like skipped everything but the first post? Mixing the two books in one character is... just dumb. Okay, I'll take that as an insult.
Debonair 01-31-05, 12:14 AM	Maybe that's not the word I was looking for, but... I'm just kinda staggered by this. Alignment restrictions aren't there for game balance. Alignment restrictions are there because they're a part of the definition of the class/feat. It's one of those things that ties the rules in with the rest of the game. A Paladin is a very specific type of person, and that lifestyle and set of behaviors exists exclusively within the Lawful Good alignment. A Monk is defined by his focus and discipline as much as by his ability to punch and kick and have nasty unarmored AC. The Vow of Poverty can only be made by someone who is selfless beyond all reason, giving all his worldly possesions to those in need. The concept of such a person also eating souls on the side... just... doesn't work. There's a definate line between analyzing and optimizing stats, and stripping the game down to its numbers, excluding all else. If that line was on fire, this idea would be in no danger of being burned. On the other hand, these two books are a slight exception. They're a bit more powerful, but in exchange you have to earn it by being a shining paragon of your alignment, and usually takes more work to maintain. Mixing them would probably be nasty, but there is no time that should ever happen. It's like asking if your assassin could score some Slayer of Domiel levels to be even more lethal. A DM who allows it has ceased to be a DM in favor of being "the guy who plays the monsters and deals out the L00T".
Need_A_Life 01-31-05, 12:49 PM	I know it isn't supposed to be that way, and that anyone who allows this in their game should be hunted down (or something to that effect). But it's frightning how much happens when you remove alignment. Sure, it should/can NEVER happen but in a theoretical situation it is frightning.
Debonair 01-31-05, 02:37 PM	And I'm sure that if Heironeous and Hextor teamed up, they'd beat the hell out of everyone else. What's the point? But to your original question, I say no. It is not a balancing factor. It is part of the bridge that connects the rules to the game, and the glue that holds the game together. It's what keeps the ex-paladin/blackguards from keeping both sets of powers. A game without them just doesn't make sence. By the way, about Chaotic Monks... A Monk isn't a guy who takes Kickboxing classes once a week at the gym down the street. That's a Warrior with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. A Monk trains as a full-time job, then comes home, eats dinner, and decides the perfect way to end the day is a nice quiet evening of training until his body begs for enough rest to survive the next day. Can you explain to me how Chaotic, let alone Neutral, fits into that personality?
Wil Harvey 01-31-05, 02:48 PM	Alignment restrictions aren't there for game balance. Alignment restrictions are there because they're a part of the definition of the class/feat. See, this is wrong, partly. There are two very distinct types of alignment restrictions within the game. One type is to "preserve" the definition of the class/feat. The other type is very much there for game balance. Monks' alignment restriction is a good example of the former. Does it really affect anything if there are chaotic monks? Of course not. Vow of Poverty is a good example of the latter. You have to be exalted to obtain that feat. By using the definitions of exalted laid out in the Book of Exalted Deeds, being exalted rather than good is going to be a detriment as often as it will be a benefit, if not much more often. If you want to take an exalted feat, you have very lofty standards to live up to, both good and bad. Unfortunately, most people who take Vow of Poverty take it with no mind to its alignment requirements, which very quickly makes the feat overpowered. Exalted feats, like FR regional feats, are designed to be slightly more powerful, offset by the much more difficult requirements to obtain the feat. If you ignore those requirements, like alignment in this case, it very much can upset game balance.
Need_A_Life 02-02-05, 01:16 PM	By the way, about Chaotic Monks... A Monk isn't a guy who takes Kickboxing classes once a week at the gym down the street. That's a Warrior with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. A Monk trains as a full-time job, then comes home, eats dinner, and decides the perfect way to end the day is a nice quiet evening of training until his body begs for enough rest to survive the next day. Can you explain to me how Chaotic, let alone Neutral, fits into that personality? Then he's just not the guy who sets high goals and try to acomplish it by eating exactly what his mentor instructed him. He might be totally focused on his martial arts without being lawful. I know a guy who's 2. Dan (something like having the status of two black belts) who isn't all that strict... EDIT: Text fracture
heretic888 02-02-05, 03:19 PM	I know a guy who's 2. Dan (something like having the status of two black belts) who isn't all that strict... Monk is not synonymous with "martial artist".
Mirikon 02-02-05, 04:06 PM	Allignment restrictions can be a balancing factor. In fact, they're one of the things that makes Exalted and Vile feats balanced. You're getting some nice power, but you are putting some heavy restrictions on your character. Unfortunately, as these are not reflected in the actual mechanics, some DMs tend to ignore them. Frankly, there are many non-mechanical things that are balancing factors. For instance, take a Medusa PC. Medusas have a well deserved reputation for being evil, and turning people to stone. Now, this PC might not be evil, and may only use the gaze attack as a last resort, but if the DM has two brain cells put together, there will be negative consequences whenever she's found out for what she is, depending on the area, and the company, not the least of which might be the angry mob with pitchforks. When you are on the list of creatures adventurers love to kill, then you gotta expect some problems. That's part of what balances a PC medusa. Another example would be the Samurai's and Paladin's codes. These are not put down in the mechanics of the class. There's no roll a d20, and see if you follow the code. These are RP restrictions, which help to balance the class. DMs who ignore such things of course unbalance the game. A good example of nonmecanical restrictions balancing a class would be the True Necromancer. Basically, it is open to evil cleric/wizards only, or cleric/sorcerers. The evil part is because you're focused intensely on necromancy, doing the whole create undead thing. That's pretty well up there on the list of evil acts. On top of that, necromancy is understandably feared by pretty much all non-necromancers. If this isn't causing PC true necromancers problems in the game world when it becomes known, then the DM isn't doing his job, unless the group is in an evil campaign, in a part of the game world that is both tolerant and supportive of necromancy.
Debonair 02-03-05, 09:19 AM	Monk goes way beyond earning blackbelts. Not to disrespect your friend in any way, but a Monk taps into the mystical martial arts stuff they talk about in the really cool stories, but you're probably never going to see. It's the quasi-magical stuff that I doubt he is capable of. Crouching Tiger stuff. Minus the flying...
heretic888 02-03-05, 09:49 AM	Monk goes way beyond earning blackbelts. Not to disrespect your friend in any way, but a Monk taps into the mystical martial arts stuff they talk about in the really cool stories, but you're probably never going to see. It's the quasi-magical stuff that I doubt he is capable of. Crouching Tiger stuff. Minus the flying... Uhhh.... More realistically (most of the "quasi-magical" stuff you are talking about doesn't exist and what little that does can be attained by any dedicated martial artist), the Monk is just not a catchall term for "martial artist". The Monk is a specialized warrior from one of many monastic communities (monasteries, temples, whatever) --- with specific alignment and multiclass restrictions, a certain philosophical approach to life, and a certain approach to religion. The training is also pretty specific, too. Very pseudo-Shaolin type of stuff, with specific abilities (like Quivering Palm and Ki Strike) and specific weapon skills (things like nunchaku, tonfa, sai, kama, and so on) In all honesty, the Monk in the PHB should probably be a prestige class. It is just as specialized and unique as the Monk prestige classes in, say, Oriental Adventures. Laterz.
Need_A_Life 02-04-05, 11:00 AM	Actually I don't think I have to respond anymore this is actually a thread that's evolving. Congratulations everyone, we've gone over to discussing mechanics vs. non-mechanics instead of just talking alignment :w00t: :cheer: :w00t: :cheer: .
Gilean 02-04-05, 12:24 PM	Alignments can't balance things. Being exalted, or vile, goes beyond alignments. That is way they can affect balance.
Dunelord 02-09-05, 10:41 PM	This is just a minor thought but another factor is use of/weakness to magic items. A neutral chracter can't be hurt by a Unholy weapon and so forth.
James Wildspell 02-09-05, 11:21 PM	This is just a minor thought but another factor is use of/weakness to magic items. A neutral chracter can't be hurt by a Unholy weapon and so forth. Huh? I assume that you mean it wouldn't do any bonus damage. But to return to the OP: Yes, alignment has evolved into a balancing factor, regardless of any original intent. Chaotic Monks do not make sense in terms of the game rules, regardless of any Real World examples anyone may cite, including mine. BUT... It is not Lawful to steal if stealing is against the law. It is not Chaotic to obey all of a societies' written laws. It is not Evil to be a benevolent ruler. It is not Good to slay defenceless innocents. :cool:
Dunelord 02-15-05, 04:28 AM	Yeah I ment extra damage, my bad. I guess a better way to say it would be that their are certin magic items you can't use, spells you can't cast, and effects from both that are worse depending on your alignement.
Mongoose4937 02-15-05, 11:25 AM	As a note on alignment restrictions: 1. Alignment affects cleric spellcasting, as well as the ability to turn or rebuke undead. Not many PC's can rebuke undead as a result. 2. Paladins have a very difficult time fighting lawful outsiders. Anything with DR/chaotic will be a problem for paladins and monks. 3. Barbarians have a difficult time fighting chaotic outsiders. Anything with DR/Lawful will be a problem for barbarians. 4. Paladins are better at fighting demons than devils. Adding the axiomatic quality to a weapon helps against demons just as much as holy, but paladins can't weild anarchic weapons without penalties. 5. Few opponents that you'll be fighting have detect evil as a spell-like ability. A lot have detect good, however, and that blows most of your stealth attempts out of the water. 6. Evil cleric's can't spontaneously cure. Everything that alignment affects mechanic-wise changes game balance in subtle ways. Just because it's the same at first glance, doesn't mean it's completely the same. A rapier is, for example, superior to a scimitar in every way. It's a one handed weapon, it has the same stat line, and you can use finesse with it. At a closer glance, Druids can use scimitars (advantage), and there are a few monsters that have DR/slashing (treants and zombies come to mind). This turns the tides more towards balance.
Sinon 02-15-05, 12:53 PM	How can alignment not be regarded as a balancing aspect, at least in part? Look at the paladin for example: He has truly awesome special abilities, spells, and the best weapon and armor proficiencies. This level of power is more than justified though when it is considered in the context of his alignment restriction. He can’t just be good or lawful, either of which are hard enough to live up to, he has to somehow manage to be both. He becomes a sub-standard fighter the minute he slides out of favor on either axis, and realistically, good and law can come into conflict all too frequently. I don’t pretend to know if the alignment restriction was placed on the paladin expressly for the purpose of game balance, but regardless, it is there. Chaotic good paladins wouldn’t face nearly the same difficulties in staying in aligned that lawful good paladins must.