Post/Author/DateTime	Post
KDSN 10-17-04, 10:25 PM	There is a character in our game that is a chaotic evil blackguard. What will happen when it has it alignment changed due to say helm of opposite alignment? The character is now lawful good, does he loose any of his blackguard stuff?
edsonaoki 10-17-04, 10:38 PM	According to Complete Warrior, if you lose the Prerequisites for a Prestige Class, you lose all class features from the PrC, but you retain the Hit Dice and Hit-Dice related stuff (BAB, Saves and Skills). If you regain the Prerequisites, you regain the class abilities.
angryman 10-17-04, 11:13 PM	That exact thing happened in my game. I was a LN wizard who hated the CE blackguard, so I crafted a helm for him. For doing me a big favour, I gave it to him. And no, I didn't lie to him- it was a magic helmet and it did help him. (in my opinion anyway) He became LG, renounced his evil ways and became my servant. (long story that one)
Kingside_Bishop 10-18-04, 12:04 AM	Yes, he absolutely would lost his Blackguard abilities. The following is all house ruling, so beware. If the character were to renounce his evil ways and embrace his new nature (even when he takes the helm off) I would allow him to start taking levels in paladin. For each level of paladin he gains, I would allow him to lose a level of blackguard and gain another level of paladin. So, if he's a fourth level blackguard, then next character level he could take a level in paladin, then drop a level in blackguard to gain another level of paladin, becoming a blackguard 3 / paladin 2. Kind of like the paladin falling from grace into blackguard, but climbing up instead, and more difficult.
KDSN 10-18-04, 03:17 AM	We are in angryman's situation. Everyone in the party is good and he is evil. We have almost come to blows a few times. And a powerful NPC he angered in town is about to do it to him. But I like Kingsides idea I may suggest that.
Engilbrand 10-18-04, 11:34 AM	I would recommend getting him an atonement spell. When he has atoned, let him swap his Blackguard stuff back for Paladin. He would have started as a Paladin anyway, right? If he was 10 Paladin and 5 Blackguard, just make him a 15th level Paladin. Helm of Alignment Change is permanent. If he puts it on, he goes to LG. If he takes it off, he's still LG.
Objulen 10-18-04, 03:20 PM	It would depend, IMO. Some PrC's alignment restrictions aren't an integral part of the class, but exist because Wizard designed the class in such a way that you will probably violate or keep D&D ethics one way or another, or requires an organization that only accepts members who follow certain guideliens, such as the Assassin. In such a case, I would allow the PC to keep all class abilities -- after all, the only difference between a Rouge 10/Assassin 10 and a Rouge 20 who go around back stabbing people are class levels and focus (and, given that the reason why assassins are evil when you don't have the organization who controls the PrC, you lose any real restriction on alignment on this PrC when it dissolves; after all, last time I checked a rouge who goes around backstabbing evil creatures doens't get labeled as evil). On the other hand, a Blackgaurd's entire purpose is evil. They serve evil, they exemplify evil, and evil incorperates a core, integral component of the PrC. Without it, you don't really have the class anymore.
Sensei Gith 10-18-04, 05:17 PM	In 3.5, you do not lose class features when you no longer meet the prerequisites. You may not progress further in the PrC, though. CW is overruled on this one. I'd only use that variant if a) there was a very good reason (losing divine blackguard abilities, but not sneak attack if you change alignment) or someone was abusing it (ph33r my 17 PrC's!!!11).
edsonaoki 10-19-04, 10:03 AM	Originally Posted by Sensei Gith In 3.5, you do not lose class features when you no longer meet the prerequisites. You may not progress further in the PrC, though. CW is overruled on this one. I'd only use that variant if a) there was a very good reason (losing divine blackguard abilities, but not sneak attack if you change alignment) or someone was abusing it (ph33r my 17 PrC's!!!11). What do you mean CW is "overruled"? CW is 3.5 and newer than 3.5 DMG, that doesn't say anything about effects of losing the prereqs or a PrC. CW mentions clearly: "If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other class abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provides."
Sensei Gith 10-19-04, 03:38 PM	The core rules say one thing. The supplement says another. The core book wins. That's how it works (and why the Sage's house rules do not override reality).
edsonaoki 10-19-04, 04:28 PM	Originally Posted by Sensei Gith The core rules say one thing. The supplement says another. The core book wins. That's how it works (and why the Sage's house rules do not override reality). Hmmm, and the core rules says that quicken spell is a free action. Miniatures Handbook and Expanded Psionics redefined it as a swift action, so it can't be used together with swift action spells or psionics. Since "the core rules always wins", quicken spell is still a free action, and you can use a quickened spell and a quickened psionic power in the same round? The Sage doesn't overrides reality, but the FAQ written by the Sage does. Just like the FAQ overrides the DMG when it says that a monster goes Epic when it hits 20 Hit Dice, and not ECL 20. More importantly, the core rules don't say anything about what happens when you lose the prereqs of a prestige class, and I don't think the information was intentionally ommited.
Sensei Gith 10-19-04, 07:27 PM	Hmmm, and the core rules says that quicken spell is a free action. Miniatures Handbook and Expanded Psionics redefined it as a swift action, so it can't be used together with swift action spells or psionics. Good try. The supplements are obviously the primary source with respect to themselves. You should use the rules in the supplements to govern the interactions defined in the supplement. You could make a reasonable argument for the CW PrC's losing their class features if you no longer met the prerequisites, although it still wouldn't make much sense. Also keep in mind that the swift action thing does not affect how the core rules work, and is merely a shorthand notation. You could just as soon say that a given ability can be used as a free action, but not in the same round as a quickened spell or any other ability carrying that caveat. Basically, the "creation" of the swift action merely introduces new, simpler terminology to describe an existing and unchanged mechanic. The Sage doesn't overrides reality, but the FAQ written by the Sage does. Source? Reasoning? Justification? More importantly, the core rules don't say anything about what happens when you lose the prereqs of a prestige class, and I don't think the information was intentionally ommited. The writers themselves stated that the change was deliberate. Moreover, the proper place for a rules correction is errata, not CW.
Objulen 10-19-04, 07:45 PM	Miniatures Handbook and Expanded Psionics redefined it as a swift action, so it can't be used together with swift action spells or psionics. Except that the definition of a swift action in the XPH specifically states that it is not a free action, but that it is very similar to one. More importantly, the core rules don't say anything about what happens when you lose the prereqs of a prestige class, and I don't think the information was intentionally ommited The best answer, hands down, is to deal with this type of situation on a case-by-case basis. There are too many factors to simply make a blanket statment that will make sense. Some PrCs, for example, require an alignment as the core, fundamental source of power for that class (like the Blackgaurd); others simply have it because a) D&D's flawed ethics (True Necromancer, Ur-Priest) b) or the PrC has a flavor in a particular setting that requires acts of a certain nature to gain that specific PrC.
Wildonion 10-19-04, 08:14 PM	That exact thing happened in my game. I was a LN wizard who hated the CE blackguard, so I crafted a helm for him. For doing me a big favour, I gave it to him. And no, I didn't lie to him- it was a magic helmet and it did help him. (in my opinion anyway) He became LG, renounced his evil ways and became my servant. (long story that one) :rofl: and you called the Blackguard evil!
edsonaoki 10-19-04, 10:09 PM	Originally Posted by Sensei Gith Good try. The supplements are obviously the primary source with respect to themselves. You should use the rules in the supplements to govern the interactions defined in the supplement. You could make a reasonable argument for the CW PrC's losing their class features if you no longer met the prerequisites, although it still wouldn't make much sense. So, do Complete Warrior PrCs lose their abilities if they lose the prerequisites, and other PrCs do not? As yourself said, it doesn't make sense. Also keep in mind that the swift action thing does not affect how the core rules work, and is merely a shorthand notation. You could just as soon say that a given ability can be used as a free action, but not in the same round as a quickened spell or any other ability carrying that caveat. Basically, the "creation" of the swift action merely introduces new, simpler terminology to describe an existing and unchanged mechanic. Neither CW rules change anything. It just introduces a rule for something that wasn't present. It does not contradict anything that is on the DMG, that merely says that you must fullfill the requirements in order to gain the first level in the PrC (but it doesn't say anything about what happens when you lose them). Just like Frostburn introduces tons of rules for adventuring on cold regions. Quote: The Sage doesn't overrides reality, but the FAQ written by the Sage does. Source? Reasoning? Justification? Common sense. It wouldn't have a point to have a so-called "Oficial FAQ" if nothing wrriten on it were official. The writers themselves stated that the change was deliberate. Moreover, the proper place for a rules correction is errata, not CW. Stated were? And CW information is a clarification, not an errata, for the reasons I already mentioned. As a clarification, expect that it will be mentioned on the next version of the FAQ. Originally Posted by Wildonion The best answer, hands down, is to deal with this type of situation on a case-by-case basis. There are too many factors to simply make a blanket statment that will make sense. Some PrCs, for example, require an alignment as the core, fundamental source of power for that class (like the Blackgaurd); others simply have it because a) D&D's flawed ethics (True Necromancer, Ur-Priest) b) or the PrC has a flavor in a particular setting that requires acts of a certain nature to gain that specific PrC. I don't see what's the problem with the CW approach, to justify a "casis-by-casis" approach. It prevents one from changing to an alignment just to get the abilities of a PrC and then change alignment again. It prevents one from simply picking temporary magical bonuses just to qualify for a PrC, or for a feat that is requirement for a PrC (like enlarge, polymorphing spells, or magic that increase ability scores). The other prereqs for PrCs are usually feats and skill ranks, which the character can't normally lose.
Nimrud 10-19-04, 10:25 PM	What happens if the now LG Blackguard decides to do evil again? All it takes is a few murders and he's back to CE. A helm of opposite alignment can't predetermine PC actions. Alignment follows actions, not the other way around.
Objulen 10-19-04, 11:14 PM	What happens if the now LG Blackguard decides to do evil again? All it takes is a few murders and he's back to CE. A helm of opposite alignment can't predetermine PC actions. Alignment follows actions, not the other way around. True. It would probably take more than a few murders for that radical of a change, but that could work. However, acting like you always have after something like a helm of opposite alignment is used on you is very poor RPing and should recieve a response from the DM for metagaming, if not outright cheating (the fish option comes to mind).
01d55 10-19-04, 11:32 PM	In the case of a Blackguard, I'd inflict penalties parallel to to what a Paladin suffers for doing evil. When it comes to prereqs for prestige classes in general, it makes sense that a character who somehow lost a feat prereq would be unable to use PrC abilities, but not necessarily for alignment prereqs. What doesn't make sense is for a supplement to contain a sweeping change to the core rules in the absence of independent errata for those who stick to the core rule books.
KoboldMenace 10-20-04, 03:25 AM	The core book wins. That's how it works Not always. I remember when the version of ploymorph in Tome and Blood became the new 'official version' and was later put in the PHB 3.0 errata....I think.
Nimrud 10-20-04, 03:45 AM	True. It would probably take more than a few murders for that radical of a change, but that could work. However, acting like you always have after something like a helm of opposite alignment is used on you is very poor RPing and should recieve a response from the DM for metagaming, if not outright cheating (the fish option comes to mind). What made him CE in the first place? If those background reasons are still there, he could still turn evil at some point. Not immediately, but eventually. A sneaky player could RP his change back to CE. He just has to remember what made him CE in the first place and work off that. With some imagination, it shouldn't be too hard. IMO a helm of opposite alignment is really more of a plot device to be used on NPCs or a cursed item for good PCs who will suffer from an alignment change. To use it in this way to railroad a player into playing a good character is just asking for circumvention.
edsonaoki 10-20-04, 08:52 AM	Originally Posted by 1d55 When it comes to prereqs for prestige classes in general, it makes sense that a character who somehow lost a feat prereq would be unable to use PrC abilities, but not necessarily for alignment prereqs. What doesn't make sense is for a supplement to contain a sweeping change to the core rules in the absence of independent errata for those who stick to the core rule books. Well, I can't disagree with this. That's why I expect that it will come in the next version of the Official FAQ.
Sensei Gith 10-20-04, 01:54 PM	So, do Complete Warrior PrCs lose their abilities if they lose the prerequisites, and other PrCs do not? As yourself said, it doesn't make sense. Don't shoot the messenger. The most sensible thing is dropping the contradictory rule. Neither CW rules change anything. It just introduces a rule for something that wasn't present. It does not contradict anything that is on the DMG, that merely says that you must fullfill the requirements in order to gain the first level in the PrC (but it doesn't say anything about what happens when you lose them). Just like Frostburn introduces tons of rules for adventuring on cold regions. It's 100% inarguably clear that the CW variant changes the rules. If you still don't understand, take this example: A guild thief (rog5/gld3) leaves his guild to go adventuring. He retains all class features, although until he is again a member of a thieves' guild, he may not advance further in the class. Then, the DM gets CW and incorrectly uses that rule. The thief loses all class features from the guild thief. See the change? Common sense. It wouldn't have a point to have a so-called "Oficial FAQ" if nothing wrriten on it were official. That's dodging the issue. Does FAQ stand for Official Errata? No. The FAQ exists to answer questions about the rules, not screw around with them. Hence the lack of a clause overriding the core rules. FAQ answers that contradict the rules are errors, not errata. A few months ago, the Sage stated that manyshot required multiple attack rolls. Try to sort that out without contradicting your position or common sense. And if you manage that, go through the Defenders of the Faith FAQ. How you can call the loss of all PrC class features a clarirfication and not a change is beyond me. Stated were? And CW information is a clarification, not an errata, for the reasons I already mentioned. I don't know, do a search. You have stated no justifiation for calling an overt rules change a "clarification." As a clarification, expect that it will be mentioned on the next version of the FAQ. Why? That would just cause more confusion with players erroneously thinking that the CW rule is correct. There is a proper medium for rewriting the core rules, and that is errata. Other media, unless specifically and explicitly stated to, do not override the core rules. I don't see what's the problem with the CW approach, to justify a "casis-by-casis" approach. Fine. So house-rule it in. It prevents one from changing to an alignment just to get the abilities of a PrC and then change alignment again. Wow, just like a clause in the PrC except also applying to the 80% of situations in which it doesn't make any sense. :bored: It prevents one from simply picking temporary magical bonuses just to qualify for a PrC, or for a feat that is requirement for a PrC (like enlarge, polymorphing spells, or magic that increase ability scores). So would a clause requiring only nonmagical effects to qualify for a PrC, or a similar restriction. What you do not seem to understand is that rewriting the rules is not the default option. There is a clear and explicit method to change the rules. If it is not followed, the change is void. Corrections belong in errata. Other sources such as the FAQ exist to clarify existing rules, not create rules of their own.
Lusden Veharo 10-20-04, 05:03 PM	Pray tell, where in the core rulebooks does it state that a character that loses eligability for a class maintains his class features? I can point to the PHB for examples of classes that specifically keep some of their class features when they become ineligable, and lose others. This would mean that there has to be some reason for it, such as-drumroll, please-they'd lose them all otherwise, as per CW!
Melpomene 10-20-04, 06:27 PM	Well, I have to say that this thread seems a little tied up in "rules." I support the Paladin theory. In BoED, it says that those evil persons who have renounced thier evil ways are always welcomed into the fold. If I were DMing (Well, aside from being a little uneasy about making the helm in the first place) I would sub in paladin levels for Blackguard ones.
Objulen 10-20-04, 08:02 PM	What made him CE in the first place? If those background reasons are still there, he could still turn evil at some point. Not immediately, but eventually. A sneaky player could RP his change back to CE. He just has to remember what made him CE in the first place and work off that. With some imagination, it shouldn't be too hard. IMO a helm of opposite alignment is really more of a plot device to be used on NPCs or a cursed item for good PCs who will suffer from an alignment change. To use it in this way to railroad a player into playing a good character is just asking for circumvention. Except that her/his outlook has changed utterly. The said PC would view her/his past deeds with revulsion, if not outright horror, and seek atonement or to make amends. I wouldn't let the player get around it that easily, because the HoOA is basically a total pardigm shift. Yes, you retain your memories, but you view them, yourself, and the world around you through your new lense. It would take some massive, life altering experiance (or anything else that would cause a normal alignment change) to change the character back to her/his opposite alignment.
Sensei Gith 10-20-04, 08:22 PM	Pray tell, where in the core rulebooks does it state that a character that loses eligability for a class maintains his class features? It does not say that you lose class features. Anywhere. That means you don't. I can point to the PHB for examples of classes that specifically keep some of their class features when they become ineligable, and lose others. This would mean that there has to be some reason for it, such as-drumroll, please-they'd lose them all otherwise, as per CW! You can point to the PHB to validate a variant rule from CW? I'm not even going to touch that. The reason that some PrC's specifically lose some abilities is because otherwise they would lose none of them. Duh.
Nimrud 10-20-04, 10:45 PM	Except that her/his outlook has changed utterly. The said PC would view her/his past deeds with revulsion, if not outright horror, and seek atonement or to make amends. I wouldn't let the player get around it that easily, because the HoOA is basically a total pardigm shift. Yes, you retain your memories, but you view them, yourself, and the world around you through your new lense. It would take some massive, life altering experiance (or anything else that would cause a normal alignment change) to change the character back to her/his opposite alignment. In other words, you've broken the rule that DMs don't tell players how to play their characters. If you don't play by the rules, don't expect your players to. Life altering experiences? It's all about how you respond to any situation. Your player controls how his character reacts. What's so special about a HoOA? All it does is change your alignment. A paladin starts off LG. If a paladin can fall from LG and become evil, so can a former blackguard with an alignment change. And just as you would penalise a paladin player (who probably is trying to be LG) if he slips, you can't stop somebody from (intentionally) backsliding into evil. Otherwise, you might as well make his character into an NPC. You play him, and let your player roll up a new character.
Nimrud 10-20-04, 11:02 PM	What I am really uncomfortable about this situation is that the DM seems to be trying to fix an OOC problem with a (very bad) IC solution. The other thing I'm uncomfortable with is the double standards. It seems that if you are a paladin trying to be LG, the slightest infraction will cause you to turn evil and lose your abilities. Conversely, if the DM is trying to make you good, you can't be evil even if you wanted to be. And if you try, you are accused of bad roleplaying and will face all sorts of in-game penalties for thwarting the DM.
Objulen 10-20-04, 11:14 PM	In other words, you've broken the rule that DMs don't tell players how to play their characters. If you don't play by the rules, don't expect your players to. In this case you have to, because a player who doesn't play the character in a certain way is breaking the game rules. The Helm of Opposite Alignment is not something that the DM should unleash on PCs or even allow PCs to make, as was the case in the above situation. Life altering experiences? It's all about how you respond to any situation. Your player controls how his character reacts. What's so special about a HoOA? All it does is change your alignment. A paladin starts off LG. If a paladin can fall from LG and become evil, so can a former blackguard with an alignment change. And just as you would penalise a paladin player (who probably is trying to be LG) if he slips, you can't stop somebody from (intentionally) backsliding into evil. Otherwise, you might as well make his character into an NPC. You play him, and let your player roll up a new character. Unfortunatly, the HoOA states that the character's alignment changes to its opposite; thus, the character has a total change of view. I leave PCs alignments to themselves, with any restrictions in the playability certain ones (usually evil) listed at the begining of the campaign. But in this case you have a magical item changing the player's alignment, so you have to enforce the rules of the item in this case, particularly with players who don't want to play that alignment and will try to ignore it if possible. As stated above, I wouldn't do this to a PC, but the situation described above is what is being commented on. The PC could change her/his alignment after recieving a HoOA, but at that point I have to watch what the character is doing. People don't change over night, and they don't just go about chaning their outlook in life for no reason. As for Paladins and Blackgaurds, I hold them both to the same 'standards'. What I am really uncomfortable about this situation is that the DM seems to be trying to fix an OOC problem with a (very bad) IC solution. The other thing I'm uncomfortable with is the double standards. It seems that if you are a paladin trying to be LG, the slightest infraction will cause you to turn evil and lose your abilities. Conversely, if the DM is trying to make you good, you can't be evil even if you wanted to be. And if you try, you are accused of bad roleplaying and will face all sorts of in-game penalties for thwarting the DM. It wasn't the DM -- another player whose character was POed at the CE character made the HoOA and decieved the other PC into wearing it.
Nimrud 10-20-04, 11:50 PM	In this case you have to, because a player who doesn't play the character in a certain way is breaking the game rules. The Helm of Opposite Alignment is not something that the DM should unleash on PCs or even allow PCs to make, as was the case in the above situation. I agree that this is not something that a DM should do. But having done it, the DM is the one that is breaking game rules, not the player. What he should have done is to talk to the player concerned. But if the DM decides to pull this on a player without his consent, the player will try and circumvent it. All I am saying is that it is not hard to do, even within RPing limits. Unfortunatly, the HoOA states that the character's alignment changes to its opposite; thus, the character has a total change of view. I leave PCs alignments to themselves, with any restrictions in the playability certain ones (usually evil) listed at the begining of the campaign. But in this case you have a magical item changing the player's alignment, so you have to enforce the rules of the item in this case, particularly with players who don't want to play that alignment and will try to ignore it if possible. As stated above, I wouldn't do this to a PC, but the situation described above is what is being commented on. The PC could change her/his alignment after recieving a HoOA, but at that point I have to watch what the character is doing. People don't change over night, and they don't just go about chaning their outlook in life for no reason. I agree people don't change overnight, I'm not saying they will. But it's easy to RP into backsliding. Take any adventuring party, any campaign. Are there plenty of opportunities to turn evil? Yes there are. Ask any paladin player. Be a little overzealous. Emphasise law over good. Kill enemies even when they ask for mercy, just because they are "evil". Go nuts when a comrade is killed or hurt. Go just a bit overboard when slaughtering enemies, and blame it on "adrenaline". Get a bit greedy. Be a little selfish. Tell white lies. Go on personal vendettas against people who have harmed the party. Kill them, then their associates, then their families (just to make sure nobody takes revenge). Develop the belief that since orcs/drow/etc are evil, the entire orc/drow/etc race should be exterminated, 'for the greater good'. The best thing is, a PC can do all these things while maintaining the belief that he is still "basically good". Heck this can even be fun! As for Paladins and Blackgaurds, I hold them both to the same 'standards'. Well one hopes you don't have a paladin player, and another player that you are trying to 'reform' by using a Helm of Opposite Alignment, both in the same game. You will have the 'reformed' Blackguard doing the stuff I listed above, just to test the limits. If you don't smack him, you can't smack the paladin when he does it. Vice versa, if you penalise the paladin for an infraction and move him towards evil, your Blackguard player will want to do the same. Yes this is metagaming, but that is to be expected when a DM tries to force a player to play a character concept without his agreement. It wasn't the DM -- another player whose character was POed at the CE character made the HoOA and decieved the other PC into wearing it. Actually, it was the DM. You might have missed this post. We are in angryman's situation. Everyone in the party is good and he is evil. We have almost come to blows a few times. And a powerful NPC he angered in town is about to do it to him. But I like Kingsides idea I may suggest that. [Emphasis mine.]
edsonaoki 10-21-04, 12:02 AM	Originally Posted by Sensei Gith It's 100% inarguably clear that the CW variant changes the rules. If you still don't understand, take this example: A guild thief (rog5/gld3) leaves his guild to go adventuring. He retains all class features, although until he is again a member of a thieves' guild, he may not advance further in the class. Then, the DM gets CW and incorrectly uses that rule. The thief loses all class features from the guild thief First, the core books doesn't say anything about not being able to progress in a Prestige Class after you lose the requirements. As per the core books, nothing forbids you to become a 1st-level blackguard, change your alignment to lawful good, and than gain more 9 levels as blackguard. Second, I've never heard about this guild thief PrC. Is it a 3.5 PrC? I don't recall any 3.5 PrC that puts joining a specific organization as a Prerequiste (although many say you join XXX organization after entering the PrC). If it exists, it is certainly poorly done. That's dodging the issue. Does FAQ stand for Official Errata? No. The FAQ exists to answer questions about the rules, not screw around with them. Hence the lack of a clause overriding the core rules. FAQ answers that contradict the rules are errors, not errata. And that is your opinion, because nowhere says either that the Errata is more valid than the FAQ, or the Core is more valid than the FAQ. You can easilly perceive that most of the boards' members take the FAQ answers as valid, and I don't have a problem with it. A few months ago, the Sage stated that manyshot required multiple attack rolls. Try to sort that out without contradicting your position or common sense. And if you manage that, go through the Defenders of the Faith FAQ. The PHB also contradicts itself, and both the PHB and the FAQ are written by human people that commit mistakes. The difference is that the FAQ is always revised and updated, while the PHB is obviously not. The core books Erratas are rarely, if ever updated, because the designers don't want to put explicitly their amount of mistakes. 3.0 DMG had a ECL/LA rule that worked different from 3.5 DMG (you used ECL just to calculate starting level, and normal Hit Dice to calculate XP). However, all 3.0 supplements released after 3.0 DMG and before 3.5 DMG (including FRCS, Oriental Adventures, Races of Faerun, Manual of the Planes, MM 2, Savage Species) already used the 3.5 version of ECL/LA. Are you saying that, before 3.5, all the rules about ECL/LA from these books shoud have been ignored? I don't know, do a search. You have stated no justifiation for calling an overt rules change a "clarification." What change? As I stated one million times, the core rules don't say anything about what happens when you lose the prereqs of a PrC. There is absolutely no contradiction between CW and the 3.5 DMG. Wow, just like a clause in the PrC except also applying to the 80% of situations in which it doesn't make any sense. What 80% of the situations? Do you want me to post every DM Guide/CW/CD PrC here to see what makes sense or not? Let's do that with PrCs from DM Guide: Arcane Archer: There is no way to lose any of the prerequisites, with exception of dying and being reincarnated as a non-elf, which I don't see any problem on losing your powers since you lost the elf's affinity with magic. Arcane Trickster: Do you want to get 1 Arcane Trickster level and then become chaotic? Archmage: The only way of losing the prereqs is learning 5 spells from different schools as a sorcerer, and then replacing them with something else so you now have knowledge of 4 schools or less. If a spellcaster once had a great knowledge of magic and lost this knowledge, it's perfectly apropriate that he would lose his status as "Archmage". Assassin: Do you want to get 1 Assassin level and then become good? Blackguard: Same as assassin. Dragon Disciple: No way to lose prereqs for that. Duelist: No way to lose prereqs for that. Dwarven Defender: Same as Arcane Archer and Archane Trickster. Eldricht Knight: No way to lose prereqs for that. Hierophant: No way to lose prereqs for that. Horizon Walker: No way to lose prereqs for that. Loremaster: Same as Archmage Mystic Theurge: No way to lose prereqs for that. Shadowdancer: No way to lose prereqs for that. Thaumaturgist: No way to lose prereqs for that. Now, where are the 80% you mentioned? So would a clause requiring only nonmagical effects to qualify for a PrC, or a similar restriction. And where is that clause? It would be really a house-rule, because it's not written anywhere, neither in the Core, neither in the FAQ, neither in any supplement. What you do not seem to understand is that rewriting the rules is not the default option. There is a clear and explicit method to change the rules. If it is not followed, the change is void. Corrections belong in errata. Other sources such as the FAQ exist to clarify existing rules, not create rules of their own. And it is a clarification.
Nimrud 10-21-04, 12:06 AM	There seems to be a misconception of what the Helm of Opposing Alignment actually does. It makes a one time change of alignment into something diametrically opposite. That's powerful, but that's all it does. It is not the equivalent of a Periapt of Faithfulness/LGness. Player: I'm going to slaughter the entire orc village! DM: No you're not, that's evil. You are LG, remember? Would a DM do that for a paladin? No, not unless he had the Periapt. He would let the paladin do his slaughtering thing, then inform him that he's lost his paladin abilities and must atone. So, why would he do that for a former Blackguard?
Objulen 10-21-04, 02:37 AM	There seems to be a misconception of what the Helm of Opposing Alignment actually does. It makes a one time change of alignment into something diametrically opposite. That's powerful, but that's all it does. It is not the equivalent of a Periapt of Faithfulness/LGness. Player: I'm going to slaughter the entire orc village! DM: No you're not, that's evil. You are LG, remember? Would a DM do that for a paladin? No, not unless he had the Periapt. He would let the paladin do his slaughtering thing, then inform him that he's lost his paladin abilities and must atone. So, why would he do that for a former Blackguard? Except that when a player has donned a HoOA unwittingly you have to take into account that the alignment change was not willing, foreseen, or desired (in most cases), so you have to take into account metagaming and cheating. It might suck for the player, but if a DM introduced this, it would mean that they would have to role play the new alignment, with the ST taking over if they aren't willing to do so. It would be no different than if a PC was hit with a Charm spell and refused to RP it.
Nimrud 10-21-04, 05:00 AM	Except that when a player has donned a HoOA unwittingly you have to take into account that the alignment change was not willing, foreseen, or desired (in most cases), so you have to take into account metagaming and cheating. It might suck for the player, but if a DM introduced this, it would mean that they would have to role play the new alignment, with the ST taking over if they aren't willing to do so. It would be no different than if a PC was hit with a Charm spell and refused to RP it. In other words, the DM meant to shaft the player, so the player has to bend over and take it? Umm, how about not? You can't seriously be suggesting that if the alignment change is unwilling on the player's part, he would be treated differently from if he wanted his character to maintain his LG alignment? Who's metagaming here? Who's cheating? This is a roleplaying game, not Simon Says. In the case of a Charm, or more to the point, Dominate, the DM can and often does takes over the character until the spell wears off. But since the DM wants a character to be the alignment he wants, he should take over the character sheet and let his player roll up a new character. You don't really need to go through the rigmarole of a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Just take over the character as an NPC, and say he's had a change of heart. There. Done. The bigger problem is that the DM and the player at this point can't really play well together. This is an OOC problem. If the DM chooses to resolve in inappropriately in game, the player will react. All I'm saying is that a Helm of Opposite Alignment doesn't work as well as the DM thinks it will.
Zelphi 10-21-04, 06:43 AM	In this circumstance, the DM didn't shaft anyone, it was one of the players. The Blackguard who becomes good - is now good and should be roleplayed as such or get smacked for bad RP. Its that simple. As for the CW, it deals with its own PrC's and not the DMGs. It doesn't effect CD PrC's. Somewhat ironically, I believe it was the Sage who said you should look to the original source when you find conflicts. If it was a Thayan Knight who couldn't progress as a Thayan Knight - then they'd lose class features, etc... There's nothing about it for a Blackguard, but you do need to meet the requirements for a PrC to gain levels in a class, so no a character couldn't take 1 level of Blackguard, become Good and continue to take levels of Blackguard, because he no-longer has the requirements to take levels in the class. I had an ex-Azn in a game once, nothing could take her abilities away, because nothing was providing them but herself. Blackguards might be a different issue because they're supplied their powers from an Evil outsider, so the DM could say that they're no-longer sponsered by the Outsider, then again the Outsider might understand what has happened and simply bide his time, also the Blackguard might refuse to use his powers if it so befits him.
Krelios 10-21-04, 06:55 AM	In 3.5, you do not lose class features when you no longer meet the prerequisites. You may not progress further in the PrC, though. CW is overruled on this one. I'd only use that variant if a) there was a very good reason (losing divine blackguard abilities, but not sneak attack if you change alignment) or someone was abusing it (ph33r my 17 PrC's!!!11).According to the official errata, any rulebook that comes out after another one, supercedes the earlier book. You are correct that the PHB and DMG are the "primary sources," but in this case CW is NOT changing a rule, only adding a clarification--which you already seem to know from this conversation... Pray tell, where in the core rulebooks does it state that a character that loses eligability for a class maintains his class features?It does not say that you lose class features. Anywhere. That means you don't.You're right, it doesn't say you lose class features--that doesn't mean you don't, it just means they don't say. CW actually spells out the rule that is NOT contradicted by anything in the PHB--thus, it's official. You're welcome to house rule it any way you want, but the 3.5 Official Rules state that you lose any PrC abilities if you lose any prerequisites for those classes (just like you do with Feats).
Nimrud 10-21-04, 11:13 AM	In this circumstance, the DM didn't shaft anyone, it was one of the players. The Blackguard who becomes good - is now good and should be roleplayed as such or get smacked for bad RP. Its that simple. First please read what the original poster said. It was an NPC that has crafted a Helm of Opposite Alignment. It's the DM, not another player. So a paladin who starts off good, will never be allowed by the DM to do evil? Or put it another way, if a paladin was the one who put on a Helm of Opposite Alignment, who told his DM he wanted his character to atone and turn good again, should he never be allowed to do so? Because it would be bad RPing? If not, then why should a Blackguard, once evil, never be allowed to return to evil again? If you bothered to read my posts, I'm saying you could RP it. Are you saying the player should never be allowed to roleplay backsliding into evil again? No matter how well he roleplayed it? No matter how plausible his in-game reasons? If your DM did that to you, against your wishes, would you stay in the game?
Xeviat-DM 10-21-04, 12:06 PM	Firstly, your alignment doesn't reflect your actions, your actions reflect your alignment. A character does what they do because of their alignment, their alignment isn't based off of what they do.
Nimrud 10-21-04, 12:17 PM	Firstly, your alignment doesn't reflect your actions, your actions reflect your alignment. A character does what they do because of their alignment, their alignment isn't based off of what they do. You are right, if you are describing NPCs. For PCs, it's the other way around. Why? The answer is simple. Player characters have one thing which NPCs lack. Freedom of choice. The premise of a roleplaying game is that it's a story where the main characters can choose what they wish to do independent of the storyteller. That's what makes it fun and engaging. Lose that, and you lose the reason why a bunch of people would choose to get together every week to blow several hours sitting around rolling dice.
Shard of Suzail 10-21-04, 01:14 PM	It's best not to replace blackguard levels with paladin levels unless a great deal of thought has gone into that. It is possible to be a blackguard and to never have had a paladin level. Likewise, paladin is a class, whereas blackguard is prestige, so you could make someone unintentionally dual classed or treble classed with that, possibly imposing xp penalty. Additionally, an alignment change item is, as such, a cursed item. So it is fair to say that a player must put up with having a non functional class for a while, until something is done about it. They could, of course, earn a replacement class in time, but just swapping it over straight away isnt right. As a cleric player, this item worries me a great deal, since putting it on could make me fall foul of the two step alignment rule that clerics have in relation to their god. Well, if you were LG or CE it most certainly would. Then you have a class that cannot be replaced and you would have to get yourself a whole new god. Would you even want to? Would they care or trust you? Ugh, its a bad kettle of fish and i dont really want to go there. I`m happy for the item to offer a character a *chance* to have a change of heart (as Vader does in the end of star wars), but that really should be up to the player. Enforced alignment change is akin to rewriting someones character and that disturbs me greatly, especially as some classes, ie the cleric, have so much depending on their alignment that it could just ruin them.
Objulen 10-21-04, 03:34 PM	In other words, the DM meant to shaft the player, so the player has to bend over and take it? Umm, how about not? You can't seriously be suggesting that if the alignment change is unwilling on the player's part, he would be treated differently from if he wanted his character to maintain his LG alignment? Who's metagaming here? Who's cheating? This is a roleplaying game, not Simon Says. Except another PC got the HoOA to give to the Blackgaurd. The DM had a crafter who could make it, but then again, if the player really wanted it, he/she could make it her/himself. In the case of a Charm, or more to the point, Dominate, the DM can and often does takes over the character until the spell wears off. But since the DM wants a character to be the alignment he wants, he should take over the character sheet and let his player roll up a new character. You don't really need to go through the rigmarole of a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Just take over the character as an NPC, and say he's had a change of heart. There. Done. But, again, this was done by another player, not the DM. The DM has to enforce the rules. The bigger problem is that the DM and the player at this point can't really play well together. This is an OOC problem. If the DM chooses to resolve in inappropriately in game, the player will react. All I'm saying is that a Helm of Opposite Alignment doesn't work as well as the DM thinks it will. See above. A DM forcing a HoOA in a PC is bad. Another player doing so forces the DM to act. Personally, if I were DM, I would not allow the player to make/get one. But if I did, I would be oblicated to give everyone equal rule enforcement, which means that the player who recieved the HoOA would need to abide by the rules.
Objulen 10-21-04, 03:39 PM	Firstly, your alignment doesn't reflect your actions, your actions reflect your alignment. A character does what they do because of their alignment, their alignment isn't based off of what they do. They are intertwined. Your alignment is your outlook on life; it influences your actions. Your actions, however, influence your outlook on life. They feed off of one another; no simple linear path exists -- it is more like a circle, the Ouroboros, the mobius strip.
Sensei Gith 10-21-04, 04:24 PM	First, the core books doesn't say anything about not being able to progress in a Prestige Class after you lose the requirements. As per the core books, nothing forbids you to become a 1st-level blackguard, change your alignment to lawful good, and than gain more 9 levels as blackguard. Okay. The blackguard, then would be in need of the standard "if you blatantly screw with prereqs you lose all magical abilities and maynot advance" clause. That is the correct way to do it. Alignment-based PrC's are a special case because those powersare usually granted by someone, and that someone can and will take those powers away if they disregard the purpose of the class. That entity would not, of course, be able to remove such abilities as sneak attack that they did not grant in the first place. Second, I've never heard about this guild thief PrC. Is it a 3.5 PrC? I don't recall any 3.5 PrC that puts joining a specific organization as a Prerequiste (although many say you join XXX organization after entering the PrC). If it exists, it is certainly poorly done. Circular reasoning. If it refutes your assumptions, it's wrong, and since none of the properly-done material contradicts you, you're right. And at any rate, the guild thief was an example. Try again. And that is your opinion, because nowhere says either that the Errata is more valid than the FAQ, or the Core is more valid than the FAQ. You can easilly perceive that most of the boards' members take the FAQ answers as valid, and I don't have a problem with it. From Wikipedia: An erratum is a correction of a manual, handbook or other nonfictional text that contained mistakes. A FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) is a document containing a series of questions and answers all pertaining to a certain topic. (emphasis added) See the difference? The PHB also contradicts itself, and both the PHB and the FAQ are written by human people that commit mistakes. The difference is that the FAQ is always revised and updated, while the PHB is obviously not. The core books Erratas are rarely, if ever updated, because the designers don't want to put explicitly their amount of mistakes. Are you one of the designers, to be privy to their thoughts? FAQs are updated frequently because new questions are constantly added. Another thing: if FAQs are intended to be official rules changes, why do errata exist at all? And why are FAQ "changes" not incorporated into the future printings of books? 3.0 DMG had a ECL/LA rule that worked different from 3.5 DMG (you used ECL just to calculate starting level, and normal Hit Dice to calculate XP). However, all 3.0 supplements released after 3.0 DMG and before 3.5 DMG (including FRCS, Oriental Adventures, Races of Faerun, Manual of the Planes, MM 2, Savage Species) already used the 3.5 version of ECL/LA. Are you saying that, before 3.5, all the rules about ECL/LA from these books shoud have been ignored? Savage Species and its ilk are based on a variant system, one that the vast majority of players use. 'Cause it works better. Furthermore, Savage Species is a book specifically about monster characters and represents a more detailed and complex ruleset, whereas CW is a book of game material that includes PrCs. Savage Species is an officially sanctioned variant system about monster characters, and even you can't argue that CW is intended to be an officially sanctioned variant system about PrCs. What change? As I stated one million times, the core rules don't say anything about what happens when you lose the prereqs of a PrC. There is absolutely no contradiction between CW and the 3.5 DMG. False and you know it. The core rules are not in a state of uncertainty depending on the status of future splats. The rules are what they are, and the CW variant is nowhere in the PHB, DMG, or MM. Period. It is 100% clear that in the core rules, you do not lose class features when you lose prerequisites. Otherwise, you could just as easily argue that since it doesn't say that longswords don't deal +50d6 force damage when wielded by your character, they do. Longswords do not deal extra damage if your name is Ivellios, and Ivellios does not lose his Arcane Archer abilities when he is polymorphed. Arcane Archer: There is no way to lose any of the prerequisites, with exception of dying and being reincarnated as a non-elf, which I don't see any problem on losing your powers since you lost the elf's affinity with magic. 1. Applicable cases, wise guy. 2. Nowhere in the class text is it associated with "elven innate magic." It is certainly associated with elven training. They don't teach non-elves arcane archery. No reason to lose the benefits. Arcane Trickster: Do you want to get 1 Arcane Trickster level and then become chaotic? As before, there is no reason for lawful characters to suddenly become unable to use ranged legerdemain, let alone sneak attack. Archmage: The only way of losing the prereqs is learning 5 spells from different schools as a sorcerer, and then replacing them with something else so you now have knowledge of 4 schools or less. If a spellcaster once had a great knowledge of magic and lost this knowledge, it's perfectly apropriate that he would lose his status as "Archmage". Trivial situation; nonapplicable case. I'm skipping the rest of the irrelevant PrCs. Assassin: Do you want to get 1 Assassin level and then become good? Do you want to explain why the hell a good assassin loses sneak attack whereas a good rogue does not? Blackguard: Same as assassin. Same as assassin. Dwarven Defender: Same as Arcane Archer and Archane Trickster. Yes, the great innate dwarven magic that they use to... fight well without magic. Right. Now, where are the 80% you mentioned? I guess 80% was conservative; considering all applicable cases, not a single one could justify losing all class features when losing prerequisites. For an example of where it would make sense, look at the 3.0 Holy Liberator. They are essentially CG paladins and gain exclusively divinely-granted magical abilities. A LE Holy Liberator would get the plug pulled by Correlon (or whoever). And lo and behold: Holy liberators... lose all special class abilities if they ever willingly commit an act of evil. And where is that clause? It would be really a house-rule, because it's not written anywhere, neither in the Core, neither in the FAQ, neither in any supplement. Note the use of the conditional tense. And it is a clarification. I suppose you couldn’t resist shouting “I’m right” over your shoulder. According to the official errata, any rulebook that comes out after another one, supercedes the earlier book. You are correct that the PHB and DMG are the "primary sources," but in this case CW is NOT changing a rule, only adding a clarification--which you already seem to know from this conversation... That’s entirely untrue and unsupported (at least by you), but while I was verifying that, I came across this: When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. I believe that it is self-evident that the DMG is the primary source for prestige classes. There’s your official WotC statement. You're right, it doesn't say you lose class features--that doesn't mean you don't That is not how the system works. I can’t decide if you’re using that as an obstructionary tactic or really haven’t read my posts. You're welcome to house rule it any way you want, but the 3.5 Official Rules state that you lose any PrC abilities if you lose any prerequisites for those classes (just like you do with Feats). Yes. And the primary source overrides that. That’s why the order of precedence is set in place. Zelphi's on my Ignore list, BTW.
edsonaoki 10-21-04, 11:01 PM	Okay. The blackguard, then would be in need of the standard "if you blatantly screw with prereqs you lose all magical abilities and maynot advance" clause. That is the correct way to do it. And where do your beloved core books state the blackguard loses his magical abilities if he becomes good? If you say with so much conviction that "CW contradicts the Core because the Core doesn't say that", so your afirmation contradicts the Core, because Core doesn't say that either. Alignment-based PrC's are a special case because those powersare usually granted by someone, and that someone can and will take those powers away if they disregard the purpose of the class. That entity would not, of course, be able to remove such abilities as sneak attack that they did not grant in the first place. And how do you explain that the Samurai loses his abilities when becomes nonlawful or violates his code of conduct, even if his abilities aren't granted by any entitiy? Circular reasoning. If it refutes your assumptions, it's wrong, and since none of the properly-done material contradicts you, you're right. And at any rate, the guild thief was an example. Try again. You gave me a PrC that you invented as an example? From Wikipedia: Err.. do you want to make me laugh? Now are you going to say that the "Wikipedia overrides the Core Books which override..." Are you one of the designers, to be privy to their thoughts? FAQs are updated frequently because new questions are constantly added. Another thing: if FAQs are intended to be official rules changes, why do errata exist at all? And why are FAQ "changes" not incorporated into the future printings of books? The Errata is written some time later the book was publish, and generally addresses most problems found on them UNTIL its publishment. However, they aren't updated, and problems continue to exist and appear. Example: The PHB doesn't address what happens when you try to coup de grace an opponent with subdual damage. The FAQ does. Isn't that the same case than what happens when you lose the prereqs or a PrC? Savage Species and its ilk are based on a variant system, one that the vast majority of players use. 'Cause it works better. Furthermore, Savage Species is a book specifically about monster characters and represents a more detailed and complex ruleset, whereas CW is a book of game material that includes PrCs. Savage Species is an officially sanctioned variant system about monster characters, and even you can't argue that CW is intended to be an officially sanctioned variant system about PrCs. And that's your personal opinion, because nowhere says that Savage Species is "officially sanctioned" and CW isn't. False and you know it. The core rules are not in a state of uncertainty depending on the status of future splats. The rules are what they are, and the CW variant is nowhere in the PHB, DMG, or MM. Period. It is 100% clear that in the core rules, you do not lose class features when you lose prerequisites. Otherwise, you could just as easily argue that since it doesn't say that longswords don't deal +50d6 force damage when wielded by your character, they do. Longswords do not deal extra damage if your name is Ivellios, and Ivellios does not lose his Arcane Archer abilities when he is polymorphed. For the last time, CW isn't a variant, it fills a gap that the Core books must have addressed, and they ommit (for the reasons that I already mentioned quite a few times). 2. Nowhere in the class text is it associated with "elven innate magic." It is certainly associated with elven training. They don't teach non-elves arcane archery. No reason to lose the benefits. If it's associated with "elven training", then why can't a human that lived among elves pick this PrC? There are some PrCs that explictly mention that exceptions could be made to the race requirements if the DM allows it - Eye of Grummsh is one example. On these cases, it's perfectly fine that you can change your race later - because the prereq was removed. But I just don't see a human using PrCs for mind-flayers that give improved tentacle attacks and ability of extracting brains with more efficacy. Do you want to explain why the hell a good assassin loses sneak attack whereas a good rogue does not? Because PrCs aren't core classes. PrCs are, as the DM Guide says, balanced by their requirements. And alignment is one serious requirement because it implies role-playing restrictions. Allowing one to simply ignore the requirements brings balance issues. Yes. And the primary source overrides that. That’s why the order of precedence is set in place. Not quite. That's not the case of the Core saying X and CW saying Y. That's the case of the Core don't saying anything and CW saying Y. Just like the Core doesn't say anything about what happens when you Coup de Grace someone with subdual damage, and the FAQ says. The FAQ is the primary source on this case, and the Core isn't a source at all. Just like 3.0 Core didn't say anything about a paladin being able to pick special mounts other than warhorses, and the Defenders of Faith said. Seinsei Gith, your opinions puzzle me. You assume that one can't advance on a PrC after losing the requirements, yet neither the Core, neither any official source support that. You assume that one who has powers "granted by an entitiy" (whatever it is, since there is no "(GbaE)" descriptor on prestige class abilities) loses these powers if he loses his requirements, yet neither the Core, neither any official source support that. You assume that magical enhacements can't make you qualify for a PrC, yet neither the Core, neither any official source support that. And strangely, you assume that the information of losing your PrC abilities when you lose your requirements is false, even though an official source supports that, and you say that is "because the Core doesn't support that". Isn't the truth that, you don't really care what official sources say, you just want your opinion to be considered "official"?
Xeviat-DM 10-22-04, 09:00 AM	You are right, if you are describing NPCs. For PCs, it's the other way around. Why? The answer is simple. Player characters have one thing which NPCs lack. Freedom of choice. The premise of a roleplaying game is that it's a story where the main characters can choose what they wish to do independent of the storyteller. That's what makes it fun and engaging. Lose that, and you lose the reason why a bunch of people would choose to get together every week to blow several hours sitting around rolling dice. Here's an extended example. We began playing a campaign 3 years ago. One of my players wanted to play a CG Halfling Rogue. After three sessions, I informed the player what alignment I thought he was playing towards (NG), and that he should reconsider what CG means, or simply correct his character's alignment to NG. This wasn't an alignment change (since nothing in game ever tagged the Rogue as chaotic). A few months ago, when we put the campaign on hold for the summer, this same Rogue went on a vengance spree, consorting with a Thief's guild, which he inevitably joined and became an officer in. He works as the leader of a large group of thieves and thugs (he has the leadership feat now), mastermining many robberies and burgleries throughout the city. Due to his obsession with vengance, and his new found greed, his alignment has shifted to N. But this change took close to 5 years in game. My point is that I would never allow a player to say "Hey, I want to be CE, so I'm going to go kill stuff randomly" without some sort of penalty. If the character was formerly CG, they would need, at the very least, some type of derranged justification for these actions. Remember, the character is CG before the killings, and thus would never think "I want to be evil" that simply. If a player came to me and said "I'd like my character to become CE, can we work that into the story" then I'd be perfectly happy to incorperate that idea. Understand what I mean? The helm of opposite alignment entirely shifts the character's viewpoint of themselves and the world. As someone else said, they will look back on their former actions with horror. In the case of the Blackguard, who is a religious class (requires ranks in Knowledge Religion), they would most likely seek attonment for the evil that they did and start behaving like a Paladin or a Holy Liberator or some other sort of Holy Zelot. Perhaps temptation could cause them to slip back towards evil; this could happen if the ex-blackguard was barred from rejoining the paladin order (then they might slip towards evil in order to regain their lost power and take vengance). But the character isn't going to say "No, I'm good now, I lost all of my powers, time to go kill some commoners to get my power back" since the character will not think like that.
Zelphi 10-22-04, 09:09 AM	The helm of opposite alignment entirely shifts the character's viewpoint of themselves and the world. As someone else said, they will look back on their former actions with horror. In the case of the Blackguard, who is a religious class (requires ranks in Knowledge Religion), they would most likely seek attonment for the evil that they did and start behaving like a Paladin or a Holy Liberator or some other sort of Holy Zelot. Perhaps temptation could cause them to slip back towards evil; this could happen if the ex-blackguard was barred from rejoining the paladin order (then they might slip towards evil in order to regain their lost power and take vengance). But the character isn't going to say "No, I'm good now, I lost all of my powers, time to go kill some commoners to get my power back" since the character will not think like that. Exactly, only the person who gave him the powers can take them away, the characters might refrain from using them if he deems them inappropriate (like summoning evil creatures) but they are not taken away. The CW book talks about the PrC's in its book, but not the ones in the DMG. What does the Complete Divine have to say about PrC's? Alternatively, it might be reasonable to sap them all away, but it isn't essential.
Nimrud 10-22-04, 11:50 AM	Here's an extended example. We began playing a campaign 3 years ago. One of my players wanted to play a CG Halfling Rogue. After three sessions, I informed the player what alignment I thought he was playing towards (NG), and that he should reconsider what CG means, or simply correct his character's alignment to NG. This wasn't an alignment change (since nothing in game ever tagged the Rogue as chaotic). I don't get your example. Did the rogue choose to be of CG alignment to begin with? If so, correcting his character's alignment to NG is a counter-example to your proposition that behaviour follows alignment. A few months ago, when we put the campaign on hold for the summer, this same Rogue went on a vengance spree, consorting with a Thief's guild, which he inevitably joined and became an officer in. He works as the leader of a large group of thieves and thugs (he has the leadership feat now), mastermining many robberies and burgleries throughout the city. Due to his obsession with vengance, and his new found greed, his alignment has shifted to N. But this change took close to 5 years in game. My point is that I would never allow a player to say "Hey, I want to be CE, so I'm going to go kill stuff randomly" without some sort of penalty. If the character was formerly CG, they would need, at the very least, some type of derranged justification for these actions. Remember, the character is CG before the killings, and thus would never think "I want to be evil" that simply. If a player came to me and said "I'd like my character to become CE, can we work that into the story" then I'd be perfectly happy to incorperate that idea. Understand what I mean? I agree with you on most of those points. What I am simply saying is that if a DM thinks he can solve OOC problems with a player by using a magic item in-game, all he's doing is inviting circumvention. What you have given is an example of healthy, reasonable DM-player interaction. But once you have a DM that tries to force players into doing what he wants, or facilitates player-vs-player behaviour, all that's out of the window. Understand what I'm trying to say? But the character isn't going to say "No, I'm good now, I lost all of my powers, time to go kill some commoners to get my power back" since the character will not think like that. The character isn't going to say that of course. But the player might. Or if he's smart, he won't say it. He'll just play along and go for it anyway. If he's a good planner and roleplayer, before too long a DM will find it hard to deny his character is evil. Here's my point and I'll bold it so you won't miss it: It is never a good idea to use a magic item to solve an OOC problem. Why? Simple, the Helm only goes as far as to change alignment of the character. It doesn't change the motivations of the player. The fact that Objulen and you have to resort to OOC discussion of how you will never allow a player to pull this off merely illustrates my point. And I still stand by my assertion that it is possible with some smart planning and RPing to turn your character from LG to CE in very little time. It doesn't have to be random, or stupid. There's a reason why the path of good is called the "strait and narrow way" and that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".
Objulen 10-22-04, 01:45 PM	It is never a good idea to use a magic item to solve an OOC problem. Why? Simple, the Helm only goes as far as to change alignment of the character. It doesn't change the motivations of the player. The fact that Objulen and you have to resort to OOC discussion of how you will never allow a player to pull this off merely illustrates my point. 1) The HoOA was not used to solve an OOC problem. It was used IN CHARACTER by one character who had a problem with another character, both of whom are PCs. 2) I have agreed with you, time and again, that using the Helm to solve problems with players, or just in general, is bad. I would not inflict it on a PC, and I probably wouldn't let one PC use it on another. It should be used only as a plot device on an NPC. Unless, of course, the PC wants to change alignment radically. 3) What I was talking about was what I would do if I were DM in that player's game facing that situtation, not what I would do as a DM in my own game. And I still stand by my assertion that it is possible with some smart planning and RPing to turn your character from LG to CE in very little time. It doesn't have to be random, or stupid. There's a reason why the path of good is called the "strait and narrow way" and that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions". Which is very true, but here is where you have to draw the line, because once you involve the HoOA, you have to keep in mind that players might meta-game, which means that you can't be as free with player desires in this case reguarding alignment as you normally would be, anymore than you can let a player use OOC knowledge to solve an in-game puzzle. The character doesn't know he/she got smacked with a Helm right off the bat, so you have to watch your players for cheating in this case.
Nimrud 10-22-04, 02:51 PM	1) The HoOA was not used to solve an OOC problem. It was used IN CHARACTER by one character who had a problem with another character, both of whom are PCs. I disagree. It looks like one player decided to go PvP on another player's character, and the DM is facilitating it. 2) I have agreed with you, time and again, that using the Helm to solve problems with players, or just in general, is bad. I would not inflict it on a PC, and I probably wouldn't let one PC use it on another. It should be used only as a plot device on an NPC. Unless, of course, the PC wants to change alignment radically. Well, that's one thing we can agree on. :) Which is very true, but here is where you have to draw the line, because once you involve the HoOA, you have to keep in mind that players might meta-game, which means that you can't be as free with player desires in this case reguarding alignment as you normally would be, anymore than you can let a player use OOC knowledge to solve an in-game puzzle. Once a Helm of Opposite Alignment is in play without player agreement, and as a DM you made the call to put it in play, you had better be prepared for metagaming. Not allowing player desires on the fundamental issue of character concept is going to cause great unhappiness. If you want to avoid metagaming problems, you should have very convincing arguments for the player concerned why he should play along, or he won't. Desire for revenge on the player who decided to pull the trick is also going to be irresistable, and you should give fair warning to that player, and tell him that you are not obliged to step in if the tricked player decides to get even. What that also means is that you would have opened the can of worms that's labelled "PvP" in the very worst way. The character doesn't know he/she got smacked with a Helm right off the bat, so you have to watch your players for cheating in this case. The character does know. The Helm does not erase memory. But that's irrelevant anyway. The only thing that is OOC here is the desire not to be made to play a character concept which he didn't agree to. That is a valid OOC concern. If a player's autonomy in making this decision is violated, metagaming is almost unavoidable, unless the player quits. That is why the DMG advises DMs to be very careful with cursed items. In fact, the Helm violates the guideline that players should be able to rid their characters of cursed items. It works instantaneously and permanently and can only be reversed by a Wish or a Miracle. Removing the item does nothing to remove the curse. If you allow players to buy this item, and it's cheap at 4000 gp, to use it on another player's character, where will this end? Everybody becomes fair game. I can see nobody wearing helms anymore, and players taking turns trying to put Helms on the other players' characters when they are sleeping. Bad bad bad.
Sensei Gith 10-22-04, 04:03 PM	And where do your beloved core books state the blackguard loses his magical abilities if he becomes good? If you say with so much conviction that "CW contradicts the Core because the Core doesn't say that", so your afirmation contradicts the Core, because Core doesn't say that either. Maybe you should read what I wrote instead of disagreeing with something I didn't say. And how do you explain that the Samurai loses his abilities when becomes nonlawful or violates his code of conduct, even if his abilities aren't granted by any entitiy? I don't know what his abilities are, so I can't comment. You gave me a PrC that you invented as an example? No. Err.. do you want to make me laugh? Now are you going to say that the "Wikipedia overrides the Core Books which override..." If WotC is not using normal English definitions, why didn't they specify otherwise? The Errata is written some time later the book was publish, and generally addresses most problems found on them UNTIL its publishment. However, they aren't updated, and problems continue to exist and appear. Ridiculous. If errata consists of errors corrected before the book is published, why does it take so long? And why are there threads on these boards to point out errors to be fixed in errata? Example: The PHB doesn't address what happens when you try to coup de grace an opponent with subdual damage. The FAQ does. Isn't that the same case than what happens when you lose the prereqs or a PrC? No. The PHB does not cover subdual CDGs at all. There are very specific and detailed rules for prestige classes. And that's your personal opinion, because nowhere says that Savage Species is "officially sanctioned" and CW isn't. Another straw man. Show me where I said that CW wasn't sanctioned. For the last time, CW isn't a variant, it fills a gap that the Core books must have addressed, and they ommit (for the reasons that I already mentioned quite a few times). You are free to make that assumption (that the designers forgot not to delete the restrictions and also forgot to fix it in errata but put it in CW and haven't bothered to put such a major change in the errata since then). Of course, you'd need to back it up. A quote from the designers would work. If it's associated with "elven training", then why can't a human that lived among elves pick this PrC? There are some PrCs that explictly mention that exceptions could be made to the race requirements if the DM allows it - Eye of Grummsh is one example. On these cases, it's perfectly fine that you can change your race later - because the prereq was removed. Because the PrCs in the PHB are designed for a specific setting where elves would not teach humans those techniques. In your campaign, you might alter the class. But I just don't see a human using PrCs for mind-flayers that give improved tentacle attacks and ability of extracting brains with more efficacy. If the illithid is polymorphed into a human, he has no tentacles. Problem solved. Because PrCs aren't core classes. PrCs are, as the DM Guide says, balanced by their requirements. And alignment is one serious requirement because it implies role-playing restrictions. Allowing one to simply ignore the requirements brings balance issues. That's a load of irrelevant BS for two reasons. First, alignment is not a balance factor. Evil characters are no more or less powerful than good characters except in the case of clerics. Second, you dodged the fact that removing sneak attack from a nonevil assassin or blackguard is logically unjustifiable. Not quite. That's not the case of the Core saying X and CW saying Y. That's the case of the Core don't saying anything and CW saying Y. In the core rules, not considering other sources, does a neutral assassin keep his sneak attack? There is an answer. Post it. Now, using the CW variant, what happens to that assasin's sneak attack? That's called a change. Just like the Core doesn't say anything about what happens when you Coup de Grace someone with subdual damage, and the FAQ says. The FAQ is the primary source on this case, and the Core isn't a source at all. Just like 3.0 Core didn't say anything about a paladin being able to pick special mounts other than warhorses, and the Defenders of Faith said. Wrong. Both of those variants (splatbooks are variants, remember?) add options that were not present. They do not affect existing options. The rules for lethal CDGs and paladins with horses are entirely unchanged. The examples are not analogous. You assume that one can't advance on a PrC after losing the requirements, yet neither the Core, neither any official source support that. Read my posts. You assume that one who has powers "granted by an entitiy" (whatever it is, since there is no "(GbaE)" descriptor on prestige class abilities) loses these powers if he loses his requirements, yet neither the Core, neither any official source support that. Read my posts. You assume that magical enhacements can't make you qualify for a PrC, yet neither the Core, neither any official source support that. Read my posts. If you can't distinguish between the words "should" and "does," I'll help you with them. If that is not the case, you are knowingly and deliberately putting words in my mouth that I never said. It's sort of a variant on circular reasoning, except instead of basing your attacks on your previous attacks, you base them on something you just made up and pretend that I said it. If you honestly think that I said that, reread my previous posts in detail until you are dissuaded of the notion. And strangely, you assume that the information of losing your PrC abilities when you lose your requirements is false, even though an official source supports that, and you say that is "because the Core doesn't support that". If you think that the prescence or absence of 5d6 sneak attack, uncanny dodge, death attack, poison use, and spells is not a change, go ahead and house rule the CW error into your game. You can pretend that it's a core rule all you want.
Objulen 10-22-04, 05:20 PM	I disagree. It looks like one player decided to go PvP on another player's character, and the DM is facilitating it. We don't know enough to say if the DM is truely facilitating it (i.e. supporting it, giving it the "seal of approval", etc.). The DM, however, is not stopping it, which, IMO, is bad enough Once a Helm of Opposite Alignment is in play without player agreement, and as a DM you made the call to put it in play, you had better be prepared for metagaming. Not allowing player desires on the fundamental issue of character concept is going to cause great unhappiness. If you want to avoid metagaming problems, you should have very convincing arguments for the player concerned why he should play along, or he won't. Desire for revenge on the player who decided to pull the trick is also going to be irresistable, and you should give fair warning to that player, and tell him that you are not obliged to step in if the tricked player decides to get even. What that also means is that you would have opened the can of worms that's labelled "PvP" in the very worst way. Exactly; you have to prepair for metagaming, which means that you have to stop it. You have to enforce the rules. You have to deal with the bad blood it generates. You have to manage new player resentments. This is why it is a very bad idea. However, I have never said that it was a good idea, only that you have to deal with the metagaming and enforce the rules. You're saying, "Using a Helm of Opposite Alignments is a bad idea." I'm saying, "I would never do this, but if I were in this DM's shoes, this is what I would do." The character does know. The Helm does not erase memory. But that's irrelevant anyway. The only thing that is OOC here is the desire not to be made to play a character concept which he didn't agree to. That is a valid OOC concern. If a player's autonomy in making this decision is violated, metagaming is almost unavoidable, unless the player quits. That is why the DMG advises DMs to be very careful with cursed items. In fact, the Helm violates the guideline that players should be able to rid their characters of cursed items. It works instantaneously and permanently and can only be reversed by a Wish or a Miracle. Removing the item does nothing to remove the curse. If you allow players to buy this item, and it's cheap at 4000 gp, to use it on another player's character, where will this end? Everybody becomes fair game. I can see nobody wearing helms anymore, and players taking turns trying to put Helms on the other players' characters when they are sleeping. Bad bad bad. This is a matter of opinion. It would depend on how subtle the magics of the Helm are. You don't know what changed you without some sort of sensation, and the Helm could cloud your perceptions. But yes, PC access to a Helm is a bad, bad idea.
Nimrud 10-23-04, 03:49 AM	We don't know enough to say if the DM is truely facilitating it (i.e. supporting it, giving it the "seal of approval", etc.). The DM, however, is not stopping it, which, IMO, is bad enough Well, sorry to pick nits, but having an NPC make the item available is IMO "facilitating". The DM has full control of his world, NPCs and whether any particular magic item is available. The Helm is not a +1 sword you can pick up in your neighbourhood WizMart. Exactly; you have to prepair for metagaming, which means that you have to stop it. You have to enforce the rules. You have to deal with the bad blood it generates. You have to manage new player resentments. This is why it is a very bad idea. However, I have never said that it was a good idea, only that you have to deal with the metagaming and enforce the rules. Enforcing the rules means you should look at whether the player is roleplaying his character in a plausible way. Not outright banning any action which may have the result of moving alignment back to evil. Doing so would be going beyond the power of the Helm, because you would be attributing the power to prevent alignment change once a Helm is used. Nothing but an artifact should have that power, certainly not a 4000 gp item. It is important to separate between player motivations and in-character motivations and actions. For example, a paladin who wants to maintain his LG alignment may nevertheless risk becoming evil by becoming overzealous in his pursuit of enemies, and forgetting to show mercy. The reasons why the paladin player would direct his character to do this may vary, ranging from carelessness to RPing an alignment change deliberately. In judging whether the paladin player has roleplayed well, you look at whether he played the paladin's actions and motivations well, quite apart from the player's own motivations. The same measure should be applied to the Blackguard player. If in-character actions are implausible or very much out-of-character for the PC, taking into account the effect of the Helm, by all means the player should be brought back into line. This is no different from any other roleplaying situation. There should be no special bias against the player making moral choices. Otherwise, the DM is going out of his way to ensure that a player is penalised. It is already unfair for the player to have to deal with a Helm, the DM should not exacerbate the situation. At least, I'm glad we see eye to eye on one thing, allowing the use of a Helm of Opposite Alignment in this way is a foolish idea. I can "agree to disagree" with you on the extent to which a player can circumvent its effects and the effort required to do so.
Zsasz_Diedne 10-23-04, 06:23 AM	Ye Gods this thread got ugly fast. This is exactly why I detest splatbooks throwing rules out their arse causing upheavals just like this. On Topic(and to some extent addressing the other debates): It's a matter of common sense, roleplaying and story. In the case of your Blackguard getting stymied by the Helm, seems to be a good source of plot, I would absolutely leave all his powers intact (save the Aura of Evil). Blackguards are granted power by evil outsiders, dollars to donuts that outsider is going to be PO'd in the extreme that some High-Falutin'-Self-Righteous-Muckity-Muck took it upon himself to alter his boy's worldview. Hence leaving the powers, and the temptation to use them, in place. Now you have a classic struggle going, does he embrace his new nature and spurn his former naughty ways, or does he slowly begin to give in, cutting loose with that Aura of Despair, giving enemies no quarter, tossing out Inflict spells like candy, and regain his former wicked status? It's called roleplaying, regardless of how it happened, it happened, and if your PC wants to be wicked again he should do it gradually, not set right out to eat babies in front of their mothers. It is stated in the Helm's description that the character thoroughly enjoys his new outlook on life and views the prospect of returning to his former alignment with horror and avoids it in any way possible. If your player can't deal, see the above option (which I freely admit bends the rules a bit, but if it's in good taste go for it), or he is now an NPC and can roll a new toon. As for the whole PrC's losing class abilities thing, IMHO common sense must rule the day here. Official rulings may be Official, that doesn't make them good or even logical. Case in point: the aforementioned and already much debated Samurai in CW. One minor correction, he only loses his abilites based on Charisma and Charisma based checks, meaning his Staredown, Frightful Presence, Kiai Smite and Mass Staredown abilities. Regardless of the specific ruling it has never made any sense to me why Extraordinary abilities or abilities such as Poison Use and Sneak Attack would be lost due to alignment shift or fealty and loyalty to some person or ideal, you don't suddenly get amnesia in regards to all your years of training because you told your Daimyo what to go do with himself, it's ridiculous. Abilities based on training and skill should never be lost for such a reasons. The only exceptions to things like this I would accept would be the case of the Barbarian (and all PrC's derived therefrom) and his Rage, which is intrinsically linked to the nature of Chaos, thus making sense that a now Lawful (Ex) Barbarian can no longer tap into that power, it's a fine line, but not a hard one to walk. The loss of Supernatural abilities on the other hand, is something else altogether. Classes like the Paladin, Knight Protector, Holy Liberator and the Kensai (to some extent) have set precedence for this. One could argue that ruling is specific to those PrC's in CW, a Bear Warrior or Frenzied Berserker that can't Rage is not a Bear Warrior or Frenzied Berserker anymore, a Bladesinger who can't cast spells isn't a Bladesinger, a Mindspy without Detect Thoughts, a Warshaper who's lost the ability to change shape....etc. etc. etc. Again common sense must rule the day, roleplay not rollplay. PS It's a frikkin DC 15 Will save for the HoOA people, it ain't that bad, jeez :D
Sensei Gith 10-23-04, 10:21 AM	Regardless of the specific ruling it has never made any sense to me why Extraordinary abilities or abilities such as Poison Use and Sneak Attack would be lost due to alignment shift or fealty and loyalty to some person or ideal, you don't suddenly get amnesia in regards to all your years of training because you told your Daimyo what to go do with himself, it's ridiculous. That's what I was trying to say. Thanks.
shadow mage 10-23-04, 10:58 AM	Wow, a debate regarding proper format and whether or not amendments to the core rules overrule the core rules even if not applied to the esbablished proper format. I'm learning about this very thing in my American government course! :rolleyes: Congress vs Supreme Court, gotta love politics... Anyway, I have to make a point on something that was mentioned earlier, specifically about the quicken/swift action. Psionics is a 100% VARIANT. It's not core. Psionics is completely standalone, so someone using core only would never even hear of the words "swift action", even though swift actions are in the Miniatures Handbook (aka Munchkins Handbook, also noncore). On the comment of the CW Samurai, the class is crap as it is. The Oriental Adventures source books present my more...what's the word...believable samurai. They don't gain any non-extraordinary abilities except the ancestral diasho, so they don't loose anything but their upgrades to ancestral diasho when becoming of nonlawful alignment. I suppose another good example is this: does the Chaotic Evil rogue who fails a save for this Helm of Opposite Alignment and decides to take levels in paladin loose his skills? Sneak attacks? Reflex save? Things that are nonmagical and developed naturally as part of the character? No, they don't. However, this argument seems to have skipped something I saw as kind of important (or has simply not mentioned it). Blackguards recieve divine spells, their version of divine grace, aura of evil, detect good, smite good, command undead, aura of despair, and a fiendish servant. ALL of these are granted by some dark power or another. However, sneak attack and poison use, as well as the BAB and Fortitude save for that matter, are ingrained in the person himself. Unless upon changing alignments he lost all memory of ever being a blackguard I don't see how he can "unlearn" his sneak attack and poison knowledge. Moreso, even if he did forget it through some odd amnesia, unless he literally lost levels the abilities are still there, they just become even more innate. That paladin has a memory whipe and forgets he was ever a CE rogue? Fine, but he's gonna wonder where he got such great reflexes, such intimate knowledge of stealthy movement, such impressive sweet-talking skills, and how he can know how to instictively dodge traps but none of the other paladins can. Granted abilities are spell-like, supernatural, divine, whatever, and these any character can logically loose upon breaking his oath/switching his alignment/whatever. Sneak attack is not granted by a god or special power. Nor are any other extraordinary ability, and I see extraordinary nonmagical/mystical abilities as something very akin to BAB, skills, and saves. With that point made, unless it is officially stated in a 3.5 DMG Errata that a character who no longer meets the prerequisites of an already-taken prestige class looses ALL class features, then a noncore splat book does not overrule a core rules book. Period. I can't think of any exception to this rule.