Post/Author/DateTime	Post
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 12:27 AM	... over it. Them's the rules. Really. Those rules are there, clearly, for everyone to read. I am so tired of a new thread every second day on either Paladins or Assassins. Hardly ever on Monks, barbarians or Bards. So- clearly, there is something about the whole concept of someone having to either be a Good Guy or a Bad Guy that some just can't get. Now, I understand that you might want to know why there can't be a kind of Evil Paladin- well, there are such things in UA and the Dragon. (There's even a Good kind of killer in BoED). So, clearly, there can be Holy Warriors that are not LG. But the version in the PH is LG. That's because the rules say so. And, the Assassin in the DMG has it's class name capitalized- that means they aren't an "assassin" but a DMG PrC called "Assassin". Which is Evil. Why?- because the rules say so. Get over it. Or perhaps you may want to know why the Designers made those classes with a Good and Evil Alignment restriction? Good question- BUT WE HERE DON'T KNOW. Why not, geee, I dunno- ask the Game designers? But not here. There are forums where they congregate and answer game questions. Or, you can send an email or a letter. Please let us know the answer. But - we don't want to hear the question. Sure, also some rare few folks here also just ask that question as they are trolls, and want to "stir the midden". Well, we shouldn't feed them, now should we? There now, there is no longer any reason to ask those two questions. So, if some nice Moderator will just make this a sticky, and close any thread asking those two questions with a link to here, we can give the poor tired overworked Hampsters a bit of a rest. Thank you. :rant: :banghead:
Rivelstraz 03-08-06, 01:16 AM	Questioning the origin of the rules is not a bad thing to do. Thinking, asking and researching why X is like that it's a great thing, and I do it at real life as much as I can. Considering the search system doesn't work, take it easy with those asking. Because rules are rules we should look somewhere else and accept everything we read? The world changes (changed) because some people go beyond what's written. Don't forget it.
Yak of Darkness 03-08-06, 01:39 AM	I am so tired of a new thread every second day on either Paladins or Assassins. Hardly ever on Monks, barbarians or Bards. So- clearly, there is something about the whole concept of someone having to either be a Good Guy or a Bad Guy that some just can't get.Er . . . no. There's a multi-page thread on the first page of this very section of the boards asking about bards and alignment (335 replies as I write this). Right now, there are no threads on the first page asking about paladins or assassins and alignment. So "clearly" nothing, I'd say. And, for the record, I agree with Rivelstraz that there's no harm in asking why exactly the rules work the way they do (for alignment issues or other), whether it's because the questioner doesn't like or wants to change the rules, or because they honestly want to know why something was chosen to work a certain way. Especially since game designers are hardly infallible on the easy, should-be-able-to-be-universal stuff, like number-crunching. There's no reason to think that something as subjective (both to the individual and to any given campaign) as alignment issues are going to be perfect across the board. It's only natural for someone to question or be dissatisfied with the reason why Ability Group X (the pure mechanics of a class) are inflexibly attached to Alignment Y (a small part of the class's flavor, that has mechanical repercussions). Even if the designers themselves aren't here to answer questions, with a community of posters this large (and their combined D&D playing experience), someone looking for answers to a D&D-related question is going to find a wealth of help from those interested in giving it, even among others who just get angry and tell them to shut up. :P That seems like as good a reason as any to ask those kinds of questions here.
Archmagi1976 03-08-06, 01:42 AM	I fell both of your points are vallid, maybe this is not the area to argue about it? What the moderators might do or hopefully? Will be a section of this board where we can discuss personal points of view on the aspect of Good and Evil in the D&D environment? This is my only real idea of how to handle this... I do agree these questions have merrit and need to be explored, but maybe not in a section dedicated to Classes and Prestige Classes? Archmagi
dogolopee 03-08-06, 01:50 AM	...there are such things in UA and the Dragon. (There's even a Good kind of killer in BoED). A goood number of us do not own those suplamental materials, and as such are not aware as to what information they contain. New players especially may not have or even know such things exist. When it comes to issues of good or evil, it is an area of interpritation, and often players or DMs will not agree with the brief definitions given for each alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-08-06, 02:44 AM	Stop Questioning The COMPUTER, citizens.
runestar 03-08-06, 03:02 AM	That's because the rules say so. And they are stupid. And if the rules are stupid, why can't we refine and improve upon them? If everyone had your style of thinking, we would still be stuck in the 17th century. :rolleyes: Are you going to blindly follow a law which stipulates that you can only move outdoors by hoping on 1 leg while holding your breath?
The_Unfan 03-08-06, 03:09 AM	I'm going to make essentially the same post I did in the bards topic. The books themselves suggest using house rules. This means the people at WOTC either believe that their rules and ideas aren't meant for all settings. They suggest you change around stuff to fit the settings that you're playing. Basically, the "that's what the book says" argument is flawed because the book also suggests otherwise.
Otto the Bugbear 03-08-06, 08:20 AM	Stop Questioning The COMPUTER, citizens. :rofl: paranoia: the rpg
Feor 03-08-06, 08:39 AM	Because the best stories are always about the righteous falling from grace (MacBeth, Othello, Punisher) or the evil person who managed to (or is at least trying to) redeem himself. (Drizzt, ... hmm, can't come up with so many of these off the top of my head... The original Green Ranger? :D) As such, that's what people want to play. They're interested in characters that represent that type of thing, Non-good or non-Lawful paladins, Assasins who're trying to be accepted by society. The reason bards & Monks get discussed less often is because their alignment restrictions make a certain amount of sense. Someone who spends hours a day meditating isn't going to be "chaotic" which implies a certain level of restlessness and disorganization. While someone who spends their entire lives wandering semi-aimlessly from one town to the next gathering information and entertaining crowds doesn't exactly fit into the orderly lifestyle of the Lawful alignment. Another reason is that Paladins are presented as being champions and defenders of Truth, Justice, and the Lawful Good way. So people ask why there can't be a similar class, with similar abilities who serve as champions of other alignment, and they ask as much on the boards, not knowing of Dragon Magazine & Unearthed Arcana. When people stop asking about it that's when I'll start worrying, because that means there's no new people on the board who don't know about these things. The alternate reason for assasins is that people know good assasins exist, people who assasinate evil enemy leaders and the like, and they want to play one of them. But all they have access to is DMG & PHB, so htey don't know about other splat classes that would allow you to play that character.
supernerd8916 03-08-06, 08:57 AM	Like all games D&D is constantly evolving. The variety of the players and the internet allow D&D to evolve much faster than it used to. The fact that people are looking for a different way to play their characters may make the game more realistic, and probably more fun. That having been said, I agree that people should stop whining. Hopefully everyone knows that they can create their own classes. If you desperatley want an evil palidin, slap a lawfull evil alignment descriptor on him, exchange holy stuff for unholy stuff and make sure your DM will allow it. or create an entirely new concept (BALANCED concept) that makes it similar but way different to a palidin.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-08-06, 09:13 AM	The reason bards & Monks get discussed less often is because their alignment restrictions make a certain amount of sense. No they don't. Those are the ones that make the least amount of sense. Paladins are meant to be psychotic zealots that think they're good and Assassins belong to an organization with really stupid entry requirements. Considering the low level of susp[ension of disbelief inherent to alignment, those are fine, but restricting the only manipulator and martial artist just exists to bog down the game. But yeah, we have to shut up and get in line, even if not even the designers do.
Feor 03-08-06, 09:24 AM	No they don't. Those are the ones that make the least amount of sense. Paladins are meant to be psychotic zealots that think they're good and Assassins belong to an organization with really stupid entry requirements. Considering the low level of susp[ension of disbelief inherent to alignment, those are fine, but restricting the only manipulator and martial artist just exists to bog down the game. But yeah, we have to shut up and get in line, even if not even the designers do. Well, from a mechanics standpoint, no, not so much, from a roleplay standpoint though, I believe I made clear why I feel they make sense.
OctoberRaven 03-08-06, 09:50 AM	Paladins are LG ...except when they're Paladins of Freedom or Paladins of Tyranny (official variants for paladins that are CG and LE respectively).
kintire 03-08-06, 10:07 AM	Paladins are meant to be psychotic zealots that think they're good Rubbish. They are devoted to an order or cause with a set code hence Lawful, and they are compassionate defenders of the weak, hance good. I'm aware you have issues on this, but they're not canon. Assassins belong to an organization with really stupid entry requirements Again, only in your limited reading of the rules. And anyway, why do stupid entry requirements mean they're not evil? but restricting the only manipulator and martial artist just exists to bog down the game. With the martial artist you have a point, but a rogue can make a perfectly good manipulator, with no alignment restrictions at all. Bards are non lawful because free creativity and art do not flourish in overly structured environments: they are artists first, manipulators second.
Vestigial_Thumb 03-08-06, 10:17 AM	Again, only in your limited reading of the rules. And anyway, why do stupid entry requirements mean they're not evil? He wasn't connecting the two things together. They're evil AND they have stupid entry requirments. I mean, come on. Kill a random person just for the purpose of joining the guild? That's a D-student's thinking. I suspect the OP is a machine, and therefore should not be praised. It might start thinking for itself, and we'd be screwed. I say that Assassins shouldn't be evil. There could be a guild of assassins that recruit Assassins. But just because you can kill for money doesn't mean you will. Paladins... just use the damn variants (or that thingy that Shadowbane Inquisitors get... wasn't it Absolute Conviction?).
DarknessEternal 03-08-06, 10:44 AM	Good alignment doesn't necessitate "good guy". Evil alignment doesn't necessitate "bad guy". Yes, people should get over alignment restrictions, but it's disinformation like yours that make people worried about alignment restrictions in the first place.
Puca 03-08-06, 10:54 AM	I agree with the OP. All discussions on alignment restictions begin, and should end, with the rules say so. If you dont like it, because you disagree with the flavor of the class in the book or because you find the arbirtatry moral system in the game unpalatatable or even because you just want to multi-class a barbarian and a monk, fine. House rule it away. The impulse to rationalize your decision to do so is pointless. Why anyone else would care is beyond me. Neither Macbeth nor Othello were righteous persons who fell. Sorry, couldnt help myself.
PhoenixRajoNight 03-08-06, 11:28 AM	Alignments have become Player to DM/DM to Player variances, in good games if you make a valid point to why your character is different then a DM will say ok that makes sense and youy might a get a few brownie points for creativity. Stop thinking like a book, this is my character and I have to go by this unless I can get the dm to say I can change it, usually when you do this you just sit there and go "I WANT MY CHARACTER THIS WAY DAMNIT" heres a new idea sit down for a few hours outside the game and think about your character and who he is, think of a background, you don't need to write it down and turn it in to the teacher, just express to the DM who your character is and if the DM isnt a blockhead he/she will say "OK". Maybe the Assasin was a rogue recruited by a kingdom and not a guild, and the first target to become the Royal Assasin (yes I know mtg, but not in that sense) was to kill an evil Duke, but you still act like an assasin gaining training from the local assasins guild, because the kingdom has sway over the organization, telling them they train you for their purposes, and the kingdom will look the other way on some acts the guild might do. A paladins alignment makes perfects sense tho, and the evil paladin is a, what's that? A BlackGuard, no-one has mentioned this at all, did we all just forget? However, there really isnt a Lawful Nutral paladin class per say, theres a few things like it, but none that fit as far as I know, so this being discussed with a DM maybe you can make a Lawful good Paladin, something along the descripter of hes apart of a church with a set of codes to adhere to and what other people around him should do, but they want to maintain a balance in the world, knowing that without evil there is no real good, like a Harper/Druid? Of course the paladin would be smiting evil that got out of hand, or certain enemies first like undead not because they are evil but because they are unholy abominations of mortals that will not except their death, and disrupt the balance of the Circle of life. Stop asking why, and start asking how/why not.
Rivelstraz 03-08-06, 11:29 AM	I agree with the OP. All discussions on alignment restictions begin, and should end, with the rules say so. If you dont like it, because you disagree with the flavor of the class in the book or because you find the arbirtatry moral system in the game unpalatatable or even because you just want to multi-class a barbarian and a monk, fine. House rule it away. The impulse to rationalize your decision to do so is pointless. Why anyone else would care is beyond me. Neither Macbeth nor Othello were righteous persons who fell. Sorry, couldnt help myself. You're missing the point. Rules say assassins must be evil to get in the class, paladins LG to have the benefits, etc. but...why can't people ask? Because rules say that, we got to blindly accept it? That's some dangerous way of thinking when applied to real life. Seeing as there are tons of replies for each thread, if you're unable to see why people care, then I can just say "There there, it'll be ok" Again, people like to know 'why'. It's up to them how they play it, by RAW, house-rule, whatever, however, asking shouldn't be banned as you two are defending.
allencon 03-08-06, 11:43 AM	which is a rare day indeed. But honestly, what do you hope to achieve by bickering over alignment restrictions for certain classes? If you have an approachable DM ask if for your game you may use a "variant" of the particular class if the alignment issues are giving you problems. Using UA versions of chaotic monks or evil "anti" paladins or "chaotic" paladins isn't going to ruin the game. One easy fix for the paladin is that they are "holy/unholy" warriors of their respective deities or alignments. Then simply swap out their detect X, for the best fitting corresponding axis of alignment they wish to detect, and other abilities as circumstances would dictate. The assassin needs a better set of entry requirements, or ones that show better coherency but that's another topic. If you don't want "evil" assassins, make a group of "bounty hunters" or "stealth enforcers" that mechanically function as assassins, have the same abilites albiet modified for a specific alignment axis shift if need be, but having their unique flavor onto themselves. I like alignment as a tool for character concept development, a tool to help me figure out in the pre-game phase, what sort of person is the fictional persona going to be like - but even an old "dogmatic" stalwart like myself won't tediously crucify myself to bizarre alignment restrictions if it detracts from the campaign, or if a strange mathematical function of the game is causing a conflict with the integrity of the initial concept of the character.
Pandaemoni 03-08-06, 11:44 AM	... over it. Them's the rules. Really. Those rules are there, clearly, for everyone to read. Vaalingrade Ashland posted an article by Jesse Decker (one of the designers) in another thread where Decker said certain rules (clear rules) were stupid and wrong. In one particular example, he said that seven horses riding side-by-side right next to one another shouldn't stretch across seventy feet of prairie. But the rules are clear that they do, because horses are 10' by 10'. Them's the rules. Them's the stupid, stupid rules. In nothing else, threads about the sillier rules alert people to the need for sensible houserules. Establishing such house rules in advance (rather than waiting for the player to ask about playing a LN Paladin or Assassin) can lead the players to consider options that might not have otherwise occurred to them. Pre-emptive elimination of silly and counter productive rules is a good thing.
OctoberRaven 03-08-06, 11:59 AM	I agree with the OP. All discussions on alignment restictions begin, and should end, with the rules say so. Again, official WotC classes Paladin of Freedom and Paladin of Tyranny voids the 'Paladins can only be LG' comment. Ergo, there could be a neutral assasin variant, among other things. So the rules actually say Paladins don't have to be LG after all, nor any other class fixed in one alignment. I'm pretty sure there's an official choatic monk variant for example. Check please.
Puca 03-08-06, 12:13 PM	You're missing the point. Rules say assassins must be evil to get in the class, paladins LG to have the benefits, etc. but...why can't people ask?Ask away. Its just a bit silly because the answer is “because the rules say so.” Because rules say that, we got to blindly accept it? Accept that the rules say so and thats all there is to it? Yeah. Accept the rules and play that way simply because they are the rules? Hell no. If you dont like them, change them to suit your tables views or to meet your players needs or for whatever reason you want. That's some dangerous way of thinking when applied to real life.Actually, thinking that morality is something that can be changed simply because you dont like it, agree with it, or because it doesnt work for you strikes me as a dangerous way of thinking in real life. But fortunately, this is just a game. Seeing as there are tons of replies for each thread, if you're unable to see why people care, then I can just say "There there, it'll be ok"Hey, thanks for the condescension. What I said was that I didnt see why anyone would care what house rules on alignment are used at some other table. I still dont. I also said I think it pointless to try to explain your reasons for doing so. At some level, all morality is reduced to either faith or a moot principle. People likely already either agree with you or never will. Again, people like to know 'why'.Why did they think a class based on murder was evil and another based on truth, justice, apple pie, and no designated hitters was good? I guess I dont think you really have to agree with them to see why they might have thought that way. Ill admit, I just skimmed the OP. I am not saying such conversations should be banned. I just think theyre kinda silly. But who the hell am I to judge? Maybe it would be nice though if people could just accept that they have views of right and wrong that not only differ from those expressed in the rules, but also differ from those of other posters on the topic; maybe wed stop seeing these threads on the top and start seeing ones devoted to serious, debatable, legitimate topics like whether or not a Deepwardens Con bonus is subject to max-Dex limits. :) Again, official WotC classes Paladin of Freedom and Paladin of Tyranny voids the 'Paladins can only be LG' comment.No, those are differnt classes. Paladins can only be Lawful Good. Do you really want to quibble over the difference between classes? Ergo, there could be a neutral assasin variant, among other things.But theres not. You want one, make one or wait. Im sure theyll publish something that works in time.
Rivelstraz 03-08-06, 12:22 PM	"Because the rules say so" seems like a powerhouse reply. Is it original or you heared it somewhere? You don't want to go beyond, some other people want. So what? We can't because rules are like this? Foolish. Like if it wasn't possible to make hundreds of different interpretations of those almighty rules. Again, it's in human nature to wonder why things are like how they are. Plus, in the assassin aspect, I'd say there's a mistake by Wizards calling the class 'assassin' when it's clearly a 'guild assassin'. It changes everything.
OctoberRaven 03-08-06, 12:25 PM	No, those are differnt classes. Paladins can only be Lawful Good. Now you're going into technicalities. Last I checked, a Paladin of Freedom is still, for all intents and purposes, a Paladin. If it weren't, the variant be called something else. Like Defender of Freedom for example.
Rivelstraz 03-08-06, 12:33 PM	Double post. I knew site was lagging too much.
Neverwrong 03-08-06, 12:45 PM	To quote Philip Larkin: "Get stewed: books are a load of crap. ,, Alignment is idiotic. Allegiances make more sense. Use 'em if you got 'em.
Vestigial_Thumb 03-08-06, 12:54 PM	I'll just say this: All authority should be questioned. Authority is no longer authority when it stops looking out for people's interest and starts oppressing them. Also, I say that there is no right and wrong; If someone said to me: "You did the right thing," and I didn't think I did, I'd be all like: "No, not really. I wanted to do [Insert something you consider horribly immoral]." BAM! The other person's argument would be nuked by my disagreement. Just because he says so, even if everybody said so, the one person would create reasonable doubt (Or unreasonable doubt. Whatever) I translate this into the existing Paladin class by using the Shadowbane Inquisitor's Absolute Conviction ability (You know, the one where he doesn't lose his abilities if he cham-nges alignments). After all, Paladins can disagree, but if one of them is actually wrong (As if he were - see above trolling about rights and wrongs) he's still convinced and might just slaughter the one who opposes him. Don't take me too seriously...
Puca 03-08-06, 01:00 PM	"Because the rules say so" seems like a powerhouse reply. Is it original or you heared it somewhere?Oooh! snarkiness. Maybe this will be worth my time. You don't want to go beyond, some other people want. So what? We can't because rules are like this? Foolish. Like if it wasn't possible to make hundreds of different interpretations of those almighty rules.I might wish my swimming pool were deeper, but I still dont dive. Hoping that there is some deep reason why they decided that assassins are evil beyond simply say, "Huh, they kill for money? Sounds evil to me" doesnt mean theres more. If you seek a rationale, enjoy. There are as many as there are people who bother to offer one, and the real beauty is theyre all just as good. Personally, I dont think you want a reason. I dont think you care why. I think youve already decided that no reason is justified, and you just want to whine and then bask in the heat of the flames from those who do think that murder is sort of bad. Enjoy. Last I checked, a Paladin of Freedom is still, for all intents and purposes, a Paladin. If it weren't, the variant be called something else. Like Defender of Freedom for example. :surrender OK. Then wait for a neutral variant to be published or make your own.
Rivelstraz 03-08-06, 02:08 PM	Oh, I try to avoid any specifics. I'm talking about going beyond about *any* rule, not having the change in mind, rather, the information. Why is X so Y? What's the explanation behind Z? Rational questions if you ask me. In a "rules book" that especifically tells you to modify rules at will, I think it makes a lot of sense to wonder why are the current rules like that, and ask others about their interpretation and opinion on it. I enjoy those threads, I usually read all of them, although I only participated in one about the assassin. The reply "because rules are like this" is such a bland reply. Considering there are erratas published (a redefinition of a rule is quite a big errata) I think it's fair to assume that rules are far from flawless. There's a door open for discussion about rules if they are far from flawless or if they got more than one interpretation (which is the case often) About specifics...the paladin, bard, barbarian and monk got rules for when you change alignment, however, the assassin does not. You can be a non-evil assassin, and that's what, in my opinion, leads to countless interpretation about it. It's all about interpretation and again, wondering why things are like that. And I really have no clue what do you mean with: Personally, I dont think you want a reason. I dont think you care why. I think youve already decided that no reason is justified, and you just want to whine and then bask in the heat of the flames from those who do think that murder is sort of bad. Enjoy. Considering we haven't gotten into specifics and that I'm far from whining...oh well, have fun being close-minded. One day you'll realize that, behind anything there's an explanation. And, as human beings, we like to know about that explanation.
Kresalak 03-08-06, 02:16 PM	The answer "because the rules say so" should never be applied to any discussion of flavor. The Rules As Written work ok for mechanics (and there are things that need to be fixed there, don't get me wrong), but for flavor, they are nothing more then a straightjacket, unless you choose only to use them as suggestions. To those who say that we must follows the RAW in accordance to what it says on flavor, do you honestly play games like that? Do you really follow the letter of the rules exactly? Because if you don't, then don't presume to tell others that they have to. EDIT: Sadly, thanks to Complete Warrior, you cannot be a good assassin, because if you stop being evil you lose the features of the class. Damn you page 16!
Puca 03-08-06, 03:13 PM	How, pray tell, is insisting that there is no definitive answer better than that to be had any more close-minded than insisting that there is? Dont take my word for it. Argue it out til until youre all blue in the face. If you come up with something more than, “The guy who wrote the class mustve put the prereq there because he thought it fit and the editor didnt make him take it out,” let me know. But I wont hold my breath. The answer "because the rules say so" should never be applied to any discussion of flavor. The Rules As Written work ok for mechanics (and there are things that need to be fixed there, don't get me wrong), but for flavor, they are nothing more then a straightjacket, unless you choose only to use them as suggestions.But the rules on alignment are more than flavor. How do things like Smite Evil work unless alignment is fixed as either Evil or not? I have no problem with a group that wants to use the same situational, relatavistic morality in game that they subscribe to in thier daily lives, but there will be mechanical consequences for them to deal with or not as they see fit.
malignor 03-08-06, 03:27 PM	I don't believe I've ever posted in a "why does [CLASS] have to be [ALIGNMENT]?" threads. This is because I find such threads pointless. I do not understand the mentality of one who need the justification from anonymous strangers to change the class-alignment relationship for their game. Such a person is one who is questioning one's self. Then someone responds in a way they don't like, and the OP gets defensive. Why question yourself publicly if you're just going to argue with others who also question you? Emotional dependence on strangers is a sign of immaturity. I prefer not to take children seriously unless I am responsible for them. I certainly never expect them to be rational, and thus avoid mature interaction (such as on a message board) with them. This may or may not be the perspective of the OP and/or some sympathetic posters. However, to cry out "stop doing it" is also pointless. Do not expect to change the minds of people unless they're willing, no matter how great the argument. The old saying "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" is very appropriate to this thread and to the type of thread addressed by the OP.
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 03:31 PM	Again, official WotC classes Paladin of Freedom and Paladin of Tyranny voids the 'Paladins can only be LG' comment. Ergo, there could be a neutral assasin variant, among other things. So the rules actually say Paladins don't have to be LG after all, nor any other class fixed in one alignment. I'm pretty sure there's an official choatic monk variant for example. Check please. First, that's UA, and UA is ALL 100% Optional. Next of all, neither is a Paladin- one is a Paladin of Freedom, and the other is a Paladin of Tyranny. Those two other words after "Paladin" are part of the class name, and a critical one. (However, I still think the Dragon did it better by having a different class name to the other 8 varients).
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 03:41 PM	Er . . . no. There's a multi-page thread on the first page of this very section of the boards asking about bards and alignment (335 replies as I write this). Right now, there are no threads on the first page asking about paladins or assassins and alignment. So "clearly" nothing, I'd say. And, for the record, I agree with Rivelstraz that there's no harm in asking why exactly the rules work the way they do (for alignment issues or other), whether it's because the questioner doesn't like or wants to change the rules, or because they honestly want to know why something was chosen to work a certain way. Especially since game designers are hardly infallible on the easy, should-be-able-to-be-universal stuff, like number-crunching. There's no reason to think that something as subjective (both to the individual and to any given campaign) as alignment issues are going to be perfect across the . Well, actually, that thread is a rare occurrence, but I didn't say there never was ANY. However, at the time I posted, there were a thread each on Paladins being LG and Assassins being Evil. This forum is very busy. But in general, there are LOTS of threads on those issues, and few threads asking about Monks, Bards & Barbarians. Well, there's not much harm, sure. There's no harm in asking "why is the fireball spell called fireball?" or "why does a longsword do a D8?" either. But neither will get a good answer and nor do the questions about alignments restrictive classes. Can you show me once, in any thread, where the question of "why is this class required to be this alignment" ever got a universally accepted consensus answer- other than "that's what the rules say"? Sure, the designers aren't infallible. But the Paladin has been required to be LG for over 20 years of D&D in 4 or so editions. Ya think that if there had been a typo there, they might have caught it by now? :rolleyes:
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 03:45 PM	And they are stupid. And if the rules are stupid, why can't we refine and improve upon them? If everyone had your style of thinking, we would still be stuck in the 17th century. :rolleyes: Are you going to blindly follow a law which stipulates that you can only move outdoors by hoping on 1 leg while holding your breath? No. But the rules also allow you to make up your own House rules. The rule that Paladins must be LG has been around for 20 years and 4 or so editions. That's the way it is, they aren't going to change it because of a thread here- especially if none of the threads ever come to a consensus agreement- which they never have and never will. Basicly, there are only two good answers" because the rules say so" and "if you don't like it, Houserule it". If you think the rules are that stupid, maybe you should try playing another game?
DeathsAudit 03-08-06, 03:47 PM	This thred is a simton of a flawed system that exists so the great wheel can be 2D. ALIGNMENT OPTIONAL V4 anyone?
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 03:50 PM	You're missing the point. Rules say assassins must be evil to get in the class, paladins LG to have the benefits, etc. but...why can't people ask? Because rules say that, we got to blindly accept it? That's some dangerous way of thinking when applied to real life. . Nope. You have two choices- either accept that "the rules say so" or Houserule in a change for your game. Nothing wrong with that. But altho there certainly can be some good from asking your DM if he'll allow an NG Paladin, there can come no useful answers here. Well, other than "them's the rules" or "houserule it if you like".
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-08-06, 03:53 PM	That's the way it is, they aren't going to change it because of a thread here- especially if none of the threads ever come to a consensus agreement- which they never have and never will. The same could be said for making a thread complaining about it. Nothing going to change because you decided to try to start a flame war over it. Espcially if all you have to say is 'well the rules say so', meaning you have nothing of your own to add to the debate. The rest of you citizens move along. Your security clearance is not high enough for this thread. This thread is color coded RED.
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 03:58 PM	The same could be said for making a thread complaining about it. Nothing going to change because you decided to try to start a flame war over it. Umm, Vaal? If you remember right, just a couple months ago the Mods, in their Infinite Wisom, declared a temprary respite on Paladin Alignment threads. Thus something did change. And a 'flame war" is where one poster insults another- something which I have not done.
Puca 03-08-06, 04:08 PM	The same could be said for making a thread complaining about it. Nothing going to change because you decided to try to start a flame war over it. Espcially if all you have to say is 'well the rules say so', meaning you have nothing of your own to add to the debate.I think daniel is an optimist. I suspect he believes that maybe, if even one or two people who read the thread think to themselves, "Hey, you know, that is pretty much all there is to it: accept it or change it" and then make the choice to not start their own flame war over it, the boards will be a better place. Im a pessimist, but maybe when youre done here, you could take on the tendency to post the exact same freaking sorcerer fix every stinking week.
tharivol266 03-08-06, 04:11 PM	I would be in full support of a good aligned assassin because of what they are. people think they are hired killers just because in fantasy thats what they are most likely reffere to as. but in reality they are people who kill specific targets. they dont have to be paid. it doesn't have to be for personal gain. say for intance one assassin goes stealthily about killing all of the leaders of an evil tyrany because the people desirve better. thats good but for all reasons they still count as assassins.
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 04:12 PM	Im a pessimist, but maybe when youre done here, you could take on the tendency to post the exact same freaking sorcerer fix every stinking week. I have tried that too. In fact, I just replied to another "fix the sorc" thread. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: "Sorcs don't need a "fix"- they aren't "broken". They are a fine, balanced class that could use maybe a little more flavour, sure. It's just that Wizard is so darn over powered that in comparison, Sorc is weak."
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-08-06, 04:20 PM	Umm, Vaal? If you remember right, just a couple months ago the Mods, in their Infinite Wisom, declared a temprary respite on Paladin Alignment threads. A lapse in moderation that I hope never to see copied again. Discussion forums are for discussion, not for discussion you like.
Cadfan 03-08-06, 04:53 PM	I think its funny when people say "paladins are LG because THOSE ARE THE RULES!!!" I also love how every time WOTC publishes a campaign setting, they amend some of the alignment restriction rules, or add new ones. This would suggest that alignment restrictions are a campaign specific issue. The core books try to encourage a specific, unnamed campaign setting we can sort-of refer to as "generic D&D land." But whenever WOTC tries to create a new world, they alter these. Perhaps this means that DMs should do so as well when they create homebrew worlds.
Rivelstraz 03-08-06, 05:15 PM	Nope. You have two choices- either accept that "the rules say so" or Houserule in a change for your game. Nothing wrong with that. But altho there certainly can be some good from asking your DM if he'll allow an NG Paladin, there can come no useful answers here. Well, other than "them's the rules" or "houserule it if you like". That's still no answer about why can't we ask. Not just about aligments, but also about Wu-Jen taboos, special prerequeriments for other classes (such as rituals, etc.) They hardly have any mechanical impact. About paladin and smite evil, the Shadowbane Inquisitor has "Smite corrupt". He can smite who he *considers* to be corrupted. The Paladin could smite who he *considers* to be evil or someone who acts evil. Flavour issues got many interpretations, while mechanical not so much. Asking why Paladin, Monk or any class has that alignment restriction is quite different from asking why the monk get X special ability at level Y and not Z. I support anyone wondering about flavour stuff, since it's that, flavour, with its multiple interpretations and the truth beyond, which is hardly a balancing factor. The only possible balance change with alignments is some multi-classes, like barbarian/monk or paladin, and I doubt that's hardly a problem.
Thorak 03-08-06, 05:49 PM	I think its funny when people say "paladins are LG because THOSE ARE THE RULES!!!" Well, we try using all the flavor text of the paladin to prove it, but all that evidence is deemed useless by those like you because it's in the rulebook. We don't have to prove that Paladins should have to be LG. They already are. The onus is on you to prove, conclusively, that they shouldn't. And personal opinion is not proof of any kind. I also love how every time WOTC publishes a campaign setting, they amend some of the alignment restriction rules, or add new ones. And advice that you should feel free to change any rules for your own settings you like. Again, if you don't like it, houserule. But you not liking a rule does not mean it is a bad rule and should be changed for everyone everywhere. This would suggest that alignment restrictions are a campaign specific issue. The core books try to encourage a specific, unnamed campaign setting we can sort-of refer to as "generic D&D land." Or Greyhawk. That's what the default D&D setting is. And no, it's not specifically mentioned in the core books, and you won't find a campaign setting, but this was true of previous editions, and all the deities from the PHB are the Greyhawk pantheon. Perhaps this means that DMs should do so as well when they create homebrew worlds. Hell, the DMG suggests you do. What gets some of our danders up is when you guys come on the forums and act as if our choices are somehow inferior, and that we should all be forced to follow your choices. And yes, Vaal, that's directed at you too, you and your snide remarks about 'computer overlords' and what have you. A lapse in moderation that I hope never to see copied again. Discussion forums are for discussion, not for discussion you like. I don't believe for a second the moratorium was on daniel's request. And I believe it was also because there'd been so many. We don't need 30 threads on the same subject. Read one of the outstanding ones.
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 05:53 PM	A lapse in moderation that I hope never to see copied again. Discussion forums are for discussion, not for discussion you like. No but they are for discussions only the Staff approve of- because it's their board, not yours. When the Moderators (long may they live!) made this decision, you had your chance to complain. Personally, I was pleased as punch. OTOH, I wouldn't mind seeing an Alignment forum, where all there discussions could be quietly dropped into. But only if they were restricted to there and only there.
danielinthewolvesden 03-08-06, 05:58 PM	I don't believe for a second the moratorium was on daniel's request. And I believe it was also because there'd been so many. We don't need 30 threads on the same subject. Read one of the outstanding ones. I only wish I had that much pull around here. Well, maybe it was if you add "daniel's and another couple dozen other poster's request" :D :P
ORC_Tuhteth 03-08-06, 06:20 PM	The reason we put a temporary ban on these sorts of discussions was that they were reliably degenerating into a big nest of CoC violations by the time they reached the second page. Why? Because any discussion of alignment (and alignment restrictions) inherently taps on an individual's concepts of real-world morality and ethics, and both of those are intense, personal beliefs -- thus, people end up being personally offended and they make angry posts. Moreover, people have a bad habit of making real-world analogies when trying to find examples of different alignments and such. Finally, I have yet to see anything genuinely new added to the subject despite years discussions on these boards. The fact is that unless these threads get considerably more civil and constructive, we may consider putting the subject on a temporary hiatus again. I'd rather not have it come to that, though, so please do your part.