Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Istaran 01-09-07, 07:09 PM	This seems to be the only faction that hasn't already made one of these threads, so I figured I'd start one up. Even if the tense is probably wrong for many of you. Draconomatic v5.3 Obscura: Mourners of Yore Race: Warforged Class: Dragonfire Adept Alignment: LG Str: 9 Dex: 10 Con: 20 Int: 12 Wis: 8 Cha: 6 Feats: Adamantine Body Background: Draconomatic was an experiment by a gnomish Mourner to integrate draconic biology into a warforged shell, to create a protector for his fellow Cabal members. After several attempts he created this crime against nature; a dragonblooded warforged. The draconomatic has a paladin-like self-sacrificing devotion to protecting his co-conspirators, with a lawful-good outlook that is tainted by the unshakable belief that non-cabal-members don't count as "persons" for ethical conciderations. Hence he looks at killing an innkeeper and his family to prevent them from alerting town guards as not only acceptable, but even morally imperitive, as failure to do so would risk the lives of other cabal members. Draconomatic's fighting style consists primarily of getting in the enemy's way and breathing fire on them until they stop moving. He also protects his comrades with "Endure Exposure" on a daily basis, rendering them immune to hot and cold weather and his breath weapon. Development plans: Still open to debate, but I'm concidering taking Draconic Aura (vigor aura) as a 6th level feat, especially since I get the effect progression due to being dragonblooded. Possibly a second aura at 9th and Double Draconic Aura at 12th to use them together. Or possibly some metabreath feats (Clinging Breath seems nice).
Tabiani 01-09-07, 08:13 PM	There is one here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=658038), but since the last post was about two months ago it's dropped off the (default) one month listing.
Istaran 01-09-07, 11:52 PM	Thanks for the backlink. You're right, I missed it.
Skerrit 01-11-07, 01:26 PM	The draconomatic has a paladin-like self-sacrificing devotion to protecting his co-conspirators, with a lawful-good outlook that is tainted by the unshakable belief that non-cabal-members don't count as "persons" for ethical conciderations. Hence he looks at killing an innkeeper and his family to prevent them from alerting town guards as not only acceptable, but even morally imperitive, as failure to do so would risk the lives of other cabal members. Not to complain or limit your idea, but your alignment sounds a bit more LN than LG to me. Play how you want, but I could see some judges giving you problems.
Istaran 01-11-07, 04:49 PM	The interpretation of what is "good", "evil", or neither is largely influenced by the question of what entities are of moral significance. Many people concider humans (and other sentients were we to knowingly encounter them) as being of high moral significance, with animals having a lesser moral significance, and inorganic materials having no moral significance. The result of this heirarchy is that, for example, torturing an animal to death or even just killing one is "evil", but less so than killing a human. Beating up a rock is inconsequencial, unless that rock is somehow tied in with a human (i.e. a privately owned statue, etc.) in which case the moral relevance stems from the owner rather than the object itself. The alignment of a character, insomuch as it is a meaningful gameplay mechanic (i.e. detectable, changes outcome of spells, etc.) should be considered based on the internals of how the character comes to his/her decisions, rather than by the ultimate outcomes of their actions. If a Lawful Good Paladin is duped into killing an innocent man because he is sincerely convinced that that man is a murderous vampire, it is not because the Paladin was acting on evil motivations. Even if the strictness of a Paladin's code may require an Atonement, it would not be the case that the Paladin himself has become evil or even neutral. In the case of the Draconomatic, he has been developed and trained to hold the moral relevance normally applied to all humans/sentients as the moral relevance of Cabal members only. The level of moral relevance typically applied to vermin is that which he applies to other sentients. If someone were to convince him that this judgement was incorrect, it would force him to rethink his behavior patterns, and either change to be more merciful to non-cabal members or essentially change his alignment internally by becoming more jaded and/or cruel. People are welcome to argue the meanings of good/evil all day long, but my personal assessment is roughly: good: In the absense of self interest, you will act for the betterment of others; at times even self-sacrificingly so. You will not act to deter others for your own self interest. neutral: In the absense of self interest, you will ignore others. You may act to help or hinder others for your own self interest, within limits. evil: In the absense of self interest, you will act to deter others. You will help others only out of self interest. The "others" referred to above refers mainly to strangers and acquaintences. Individuals of any alignment will often aid their comrades/friends/family/etc. in situations where strangers would be out of luck. Also, few characters will stay their blade against all foes. However, the "others" above refers to those that the individual percieves as "people" in terms of moral relevance. A zombie, (non-living) construct, or animated table has no moral relevance to most people, so I would not deign to judge a character's alignment by whether they try to destroy such things on sight. While I would judge the Draconomatic as evil by observing his actions, I would judge him as good based on my knowledge of his internal thought processes, and how he arrives at his decisions. If a DM want's to rule otherwise, I hope he would be prepared for a modestly lengthy debate on the subject. Because I would enjoy that. Maybe after the game. But I really don't care if the DM rules him as officially LN. It's not like I have alignment dependant powers or anything.
Harliquinn 01-11-07, 05:52 PM	Hence he looks at killing an innkeeper and his family to prevent them from alerting town guards as not only acceptable, but even morally imperitive, as failure to do so would risk the lives of other cabal members. While I agree you can play your character however you would like, keep in mind this is the definition of neither lawful nor good in the Player's Handbook. While Eberron's views are more 'shades of gray,' as stated, it's very possible that your actions would be construed as evil/chaotic or at best neutral in many regards. There is a lot of debate on alignments as far as what are you 'good' or 'lawful' in relation to. A character who kills newborns in a society with laws that include sacrificing the first born willingly for the 'good' of the community is still not a Lawful Good person in the overall moral/ethos realm of D&D if he were to perform that same action in a town where that is not the law. Considering that Stormreach is the setting for Xen'drik Expeditions, the moral/ethic rules of that area are in effect. You may consider yourself LG but in the scheme of the game and (potentially) mechanics, you are not. Harliquinn
Tabiani 01-11-07, 08:35 PM	While we may "argue the meanings of good/evil all day long" our DM's are bound by the rules. From the SRD (with emphasis added by me): "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Since your character acts "...with a lawful-good outlook that is tainted by the unshakable belief that non-cabal-members don't count as "persons" for ethical conciderations" I'd put you as neutral here. Again from the SRD: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. I'm with Skerrit on this one, LN. Good concept and looks like a fun character, though.
Istaran 01-12-07, 05:58 PM	You make a reasonably persuasive case. I still take him to be Lawful Good internally, but I will allow that the uncaring universe w/ respect to game mechanics may reasonably disagree. *Goes to crossout "LG" and write in "LN"* "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. This fits his character concept, with the exception of a perspective that does not concider non-cabal members to count; in much the same way many do not concider warforged to count. Likewise, in much the same way many characters in BSG do not concider Cylons to count. In his case, however, it is something intentionally instilled in him (to make him a more perfect protector of the Cabal). He conciders non-cabal members much the way ordinary persons regard undead, non-living constructs, animals, kobolds, etc. He cannot concieve of them as "people" even though he acknowledges their intelligence. It will be interesting to try and sort out what he would do if someone tried to correct his misperception on this, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon. (He doesn't talk much, and never plays expeditions.) In any event, I appreciate all the feedback. I look forward to seeing how this all develops in the future.
algizmsn 01-13-07, 02:30 PM	My character is a Changeling Cleric of the Traveler. He loves using his change shape to immitate other races, so I am probably going to take the Warshaper prestige class once I qualify (for natural weapons and such, as he likes to imitate Sahuagin). On another note, I find it interesting that anyone would even suggest playing a LG character in the CoS. What if you were travelling with a Child of Xoriat? I know the one in our party routinely kills AND eats his enemies. I mean, as long as you are not a paladin I guess I am ok with your association with evil characters, but it seems that there SHOULD be a conflict at least on a roleplaying level. Could just be me. Steve aka Jin, Changeling Cleric of the Traveler P.S. Does this technically mean that I can still be CoS and be a LG cleric of the SIlver Flame??? You see my point?
DarkWhite 01-14-07, 03:39 AM	I like Tieflings and love the Tiefling Blademaster mini, but I also have a City Goblin creation card which would make an interesting Cabal of Shadows member. I wanted to try a class I'd never played before - Beguiler and Warlock both sounded interesting. It's a pity you can only have one character per faction, or I might have created one of each. But finally I decided on - Scorch, 1st level CN Goblin Warlock. As Goblins gain +2 Dex bonus but suffer a -2 Str penalty, I thought to maximise his Dex 19 and minimise his Str 6. Choosing Eldritch Spear to increase his blast range from 60 to 250 feet, hanging back and hoping he'll never get close enough to melee combat for his poor Str to matter much. I *always* find in Living campaigns that DMs place their figures *just* out of reach of move then attack range after initiative is rolled, meaning even if you win initiative, they still get to attack you first. Hopefully a 250 feet blast range will overcome this annoyance. Con 10 gives me no bonus or penalty to hps. Wis 8 and Cha 6 are both quite poor, but not unexpected for a Goblin. Int 16 gives me +3 skill points per level. I'm maxing out Concentation, Knowledge (Arcana, Religion, The Planes), and Use Magic Device (4 ranks in each at 1st level). As for Feats? Well, I thought Combat Casting, granting a +4 bonus to Concentration checks, might be important? Previously I've played Monks and Rogue characters in 3rd Ed. This is the first time I've tried a caster or ranged character, or having any points in Concentration, Knowledge or UMD skills, so I'm not too sure how well this will play out, but it will be an interesting learning experience. With my past Monk and Rogue characters, movement has been important. The smaller races, eg Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, usually have a 20 base land speed; however, Goblins retain a 30 base land speed, which is good! Not having played a caster or ranged character before, I'm unsure how much of a problem getting an uninturrupted line-of-sight for my eldritch blasts will be? So having 30 base land speed may be important to move to a place where I can angle in that ray. Character Background. Well, I usually whip characters up for Cons at the last minute, and as Con sessions are often rushed for time, there often not a lot of opportunity for everyone to express their character's persona as much as they might like, as you'll run out of time for the climactic battle. But briefly, I scratched out the following: Scorch grew up in a Goblin mining community, but had to leave suddenly when his previously unrealised eldritch powers manifested unexpectedly, killing one of the clan leaders. Short, greasy hair and black eyes, Scorch is not much to look at, and his sheltered life has made him uncomfortable communicating with others not of his kind - and for their part, others seem to prefer it that way. Despite all his social awkwardness, Scorch feels alone and really wants a friend, but seemingly unaware of the rights and wrongs of others, seeks friendship in all the wrong places. Scorch is young and naiive to the wider world, and needing some coin to make his way through life, was referred to the Cabal of Shadows as one of the few organisations that would take on a Goblin without requiring references and give equal pay regardless of race or background. I haven't looked ahead to how he might advance beyond 1st level yet. There are a couple of paths I'd be interested in taking such a character: 1) I like the idea of playing to a Goblin's bonuses to Hide and Move Silently, and taking invocations such as See the Unseen and Walk Unseen. But at first level, I think Eldritch Spear was too significant to pass on. 2) Scorch speaks an interesting range of languages: Common, Draconic, Gnoll, Goblin and Orc. With a higher Cha, he might make an interesting diplomat/spokesperson with the less civilised races. He could still try this, but I feel GMs will always ask for a Diplomacy roll, which Scorch will fail every time. Any feedback regarding Scorch's character build would be welcome. Anyway, this character was intended to be played at Arcanacon 2007 (http://www.arcanacon.org) (Melbourne Australia, 25-28 Jan) but due to the black-out prior to level bump, it seems now he won't get to see play until Conquest in Easter :mad:
dark_poet 01-14-07, 08:57 AM	You make a reasonably persuasive case. I still take him to be Lawful Good internally, but I will allow that the uncaring universe w/ respect to game mechanics may reasonably disagree. *Goes to crossout "LG" and write in "LN"* Been seeing alot of issues regarding alignment coming up. On lgwizards yahoo group there was some debate over evil acts in LG. Anyway. I agree that by the rules this will be LN simply due to the need for respect of life. While you may say that you can resistrict you definition of what is 'life', D&D's alignment system is a very simplified and narrow take on good and evil and does not really accept it imo. It maintains the kinda attitude that is ideal for the traditional light vs darkness battles that we always find in fantasy such as Star Wars and LOTR. This is my opinion of course. But even if you were LN you could go around saying you're good. In fact that is an advantage in the Cabal when adventuring cross faction. You would prefer not to reveal your faction and now you can that you are a 'defender of rightousness in the world' without making bluff checks :P