alignment changes [Archive] - Wizards Community

alignment changes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mean_liar
07-04-06, 12:04 PM How are alignment changes adjudicated in Living Greyhawk?
Lupo
07-04-06, 12:43 PM How are alignment changes adjudicated in Living Greyhawk?

unless your character has any class with an alignment prerequisite (i.e. barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin etc.) or is tied to a deity or alignment or metagorganisation with a certain prerequisete or restriction (i.e. cleric, pious templar etc. or dragon disciple), you can choose and switch alignment to your likes.

when your character HAS a restriction on alignment and you switch your alignment while still meeting the restrictions (i.e. monk goes from lawfull/neutral to lawfull/good) you again can choose as you like.

now comes the tricky part:

when your character switches alignment AND therefore no longer meets the prerequisite or restrictions for any of the above mentioned he looses none, some or all benefits of his former class/alignment combination and cannot advance further in his former class/alignment combination. the PHB has some info on ex-barbarians, ex-monks, ex-paladins, ex-druids etc.

for characters with divine spells there is a special section in the lg deities document for switching alignment/patron deity (this has effect on almost ALL characters which cast divine spells, not only clerics and favoured souls).

ciao

martin m.
mean_liar
07-04-06, 01:35 PM Well, this isn't exactly an uninformed question.

Living Greyhawk tends to have a restricted ruleset to curtail chicanery and I was curious about characters that intentionally take Monk levels and then become non-Lawful for the purposes of taking Barbarian levels.

This is kosher?
Arvagor
07-04-06, 01:41 PM Well, IMO, it's not kosher, but there's nothing in the rules that prevents one from doing so. If there's a good in-game reason for doing so, that's another thing...

There's a retired mod in my region that had a chair in it -- you sit in the chair, and your alignment switches to Lawful Good, period. And I know more than few barbarians who sat in it...

:evillaugh
Lupo
07-04-06, 01:53 PM Well, this isn't exactly an uninformed question.

Living Greyhawk tends to have a restricted ruleset to curtail chicanery and I was curious about characters that intentionally take Monk levels and then become non-Lawful for the purposes of taking Barbarian levels.

This is kosher?

it is considered cheesy to some extend but no rule prohibits this and there are dozens of builds out there that do exactly make use of this somehow strong combination.

actually the two classes dovetail like lego blocks :)

ciao

martin m.

ps: i hve no such character, but toyed with some combinations of ranger-monk-barbarian-fighter-exotic weapon master-master thrower, just call him "gattling", surname "gun".
JohnduBois
07-04-06, 04:23 PM I've strongly considered writing an adventure that has two Evangelists of opposing alignments (one CG, the other LG) that are yelling at each other across a street, and if the PCs stay and listen, then they're subject to the Convert the Unfaithful ability (which changes the afflicted character's alignment and requires a save to not need an atonement at the end of the duration). The only thing stopping me are the meta-campaign rules in my region, which have some pretty steep costs for Atonement spells.
Iswald
07-04-06, 10:35 PM unless your character has any class with an alignment prerequisite (i.e. barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin etc.)

Add dragon disciple to this list.

A character changing their alignment from lawful good to neutral good doesn't have to have gone through a major life changing experience. It could be that their outlook was borderline to begin with and shifted a small amount. People's outlooks are often chang, especially if you view them over a long period of time.
Lomiat
07-04-06, 10:41 PM I've strongly considered writing an adventure that has two Evangelists of opposing alignments (one CG, the other LG) that are yelling at each other across a street, and if the PCs stay and listen, then they're subject to the Convert the Unfaithful ability (which changes the afflicted character's alignment and requires a save to not need an atonement at the end of the duration). The only thing stopping me are the meta-campaign rules in my region, which have some pretty steep costs for Atonement spells.

I played a mod that featured an evil evangelist. I think the combat's terrain was meant to protect him a bit, too, but my enlarged tripper could reach 30 ft up with his guisarme...

At any rate, that was a pretty wicked threat: Remove a PC from the campaign by turning him evil. I've actually played at least 3 mods that have had that threat, all from different sources.
JohnduBois
07-04-06, 11:12 PM I played a mod that featured an evil evangelist. I think the combat's terrain was meant to protect him a bit, too, but my enlarged tripper could reach 30 ft up with his guisarme...

At any rate, that was a pretty wicked threat: Remove a PC from the campaign by turning him evil. I've actually played at least 3 mods that have had that threat, all from different sources.

That's odd... as a DM I would never allow an evangelist to remove someone from the campaign. The alignment-changing ability specifically states that the change is temporary unless the character wishes it to become permanent. If the PC doesn't want to stay evil, then they revert at the end of the ability's duration, with a Will save to not need to atone.

If a Triad and Circle rep are allowing that ability to flat remove characters from the campaign for "being evil" if they can't make a Will save, and someone's read the mod and can verify these, I'd like to know where so that I don't play any characters I care about in that region.
DuctShuiTengu
07-05-06, 01:36 AM I have trouble buying the removal of PCs from the campaign for having an effect temporarily change their alignment to evil.

That said, the one rather nasty effect of that ability that I could see (beyond the obvious one of having one of the PCs start going after the rest of the party), is if it's used on Asheratis, since they immediately turn into a pile of sand if they ever stop worshipping Geshtai.
JohnduBois
07-05-06, 01:43 AM Hmm... The asherati thing is an interesting twist...

I think that if I was a DM, I'd let it go as a temporary crisis of faith.
Arvagor
07-05-06, 01:17 PM Hmm... The asherati thing is an interesting twist...Meh... Just because your alignment was forcibly changed to something else doesn't mean you no longer venerate Geshtai -- you just may no longer have access to any of your class abilities if they depend on where your alignment is in relation to hers...
solbergb
07-05-06, 01:47 PM Yeah, the mod with evangalist did NOT say anything about removing PC's.

Evil aligned just means they're more likely to cooperate when the evangalist did charm or domination tricks. It might also mean at most that the character is temporarily under DM control, but I've never seen it actually played that way.

As long as the PC ends the game with a legal alignment (due to effect wearing off, atonement or whatever) , the character sheet remains.

The only way to instantly lose your character sheet is to attack another PC with lethal force without the consent of the player behind the PC. That's from an RPGA rule, not from any game rule. (the incharacter excuse being that you instantly shift to evil)
Simpi
07-07-06, 03:30 AM it is considered cheesy to some extend but no rule prohibits this and there are dozens of builds out there that do exactly make use of this somehow strong combination.

Of course there is rarely anything stopping DMs from witholding some of the "discretionary roleplaying experience" from said cheesy characters since generally only small amount of it is tied to specific things such as "retrieving item x without causing an alarm".

Sampo Haarlaa
Naerie Triad
JamesMaissen
07-07-06, 12:49 PM Of course there is rarely anything stopping DMs from witholding some of the "discretionary roleplaying experience" from said cheesy characters since generally only small amount of it is tied to specific things such as "retrieving item x without causing an alarm".

Sampo Haarlaa
Naerie Triad

Somehow I don't see it as kosher to arbitrarily deny xp because in essence you don't like a character's build.

There's rarely anything stopping a judge from arbitrarily doing many things, but it doesn't make it cricket.

I guess I find it bad form in general for one to 'dissapprove' of another for how he elects to make his character. Perhaps because I've seen this taken to great extremes and abuses. But I'd like to think I would object to it regardless.

James Maissen
mean_liar
07-07-06, 01:09 PM Personally, I think that folks that adhere to the idea that alignment is generally immutable without some massive event to trigger a change (with accompanying penalties) to be old-school DMs basically holding over the previous versions of DnD's take on alignment.

In specific regards to the transformation from Lawful to Neutral (for monks traveling down the path to barbarian-hood), it's not as large a leap as some would seem to think. Lawful implies adherence to a code of personal conduct, such as diligent training in unarmed combat on a daily basis, dietary restrictions, deference to your monkly master, and whatever other restrictions would be appropriate to your monk training. Ditching most, if not all of these restrictions when traveling in the wide world (ie, no longer training daily, eating meat and drinking alcohol, not really thinking you should be cleaning your master's house any more just because he's old and dangerous, etc) is not a difficult progression in a character to imagine. Only the intensity of the 'culture shock' would determine if the character became Nuetral or Chaotic.

Penalizing a player for essentially not having played 1st or 2nd edition and internalizing those editions' bizarrely restrictive rules on mutability of character motivations is not really fair.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mean_liar 07-04-06, 12:04 PM	How are alignment changes adjudicated in Living Greyhawk?
Lupo 07-04-06, 12:43 PM	How are alignment changes adjudicated in Living Greyhawk? unless your character has any class with an alignment prerequisite (i.e. barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin etc.) or is tied to a deity or alignment or metagorganisation with a certain prerequisete or restriction (i.e. cleric, pious templar etc. or dragon disciple), you can choose and switch alignment to your likes. when your character HAS a restriction on alignment and you switch your alignment while still meeting the restrictions (i.e. monk goes from lawfull/neutral to lawfull/good) you again can choose as you like. now comes the tricky part: when your character switches alignment AND therefore no longer meets the prerequisite or restrictions for any of the above mentioned he looses none, some or all benefits of his former class/alignment combination and cannot advance further in his former class/alignment combination. the PHB has some info on ex-barbarians, ex-monks, ex-paladins, ex-druids etc. for characters with divine spells there is a special section in the lg deities document for switching alignment/patron deity (this has effect on almost ALL characters which cast divine spells, not only clerics and favoured souls). ciao martin m.
mean_liar 07-04-06, 01:35 PM	Well, this isn't exactly an uninformed question. Living Greyhawk tends to have a restricted ruleset to curtail chicanery and I was curious about characters that intentionally take Monk levels and then become non-Lawful for the purposes of taking Barbarian levels. This is kosher?
Arvagor 07-04-06, 01:41 PM	Well, IMO, it's not kosher, but there's nothing in the rules that prevents one from doing so. If there's a good in-game reason for doing so, that's another thing... There's a retired mod in my region that had a chair in it -- you sit in the chair, and your alignment switches to Lawful Good, period. And I know more than few barbarians who sat in it... :evillaugh
Lupo 07-04-06, 01:53 PM	Well, this isn't exactly an uninformed question. Living Greyhawk tends to have a restricted ruleset to curtail chicanery and I was curious about characters that intentionally take Monk levels and then become non-Lawful for the purposes of taking Barbarian levels. This is kosher? it is considered cheesy to some extend but no rule prohibits this and there are dozens of builds out there that do exactly make use of this somehow strong combination. actually the two classes dovetail like lego blocks :) ciao martin m. ps: i hve no such character, but toyed with some combinations of ranger-monk-barbarian-fighter-exotic weapon master-master thrower, just call him "gattling", surname "gun".
JohnduBois 07-04-06, 04:23 PM	I've strongly considered writing an adventure that has two Evangelists of opposing alignments (one CG, the other LG) that are yelling at each other across a street, and if the PCs stay and listen, then they're subject to the Convert the Unfaithful ability (which changes the afflicted character's alignment and requires a save to not need an atonement at the end of the duration). The only thing stopping me are the meta-campaign rules in my region, which have some pretty steep costs for Atonement spells.
Iswald 07-04-06, 10:35 PM	unless your character has any class with an alignment prerequisite (i.e. barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin etc.) Add dragon disciple to this list. A character changing their alignment from lawful good to neutral good doesn't have to have gone through a major life changing experience. It could be that their outlook was borderline to begin with and shifted a small amount. People's outlooks are often chang, especially if you view them over a long period of time.
Lomiat 07-04-06, 10:41 PM	I've strongly considered writing an adventure that has two Evangelists of opposing alignments (one CG, the other LG) that are yelling at each other across a street, and if the PCs stay and listen, then they're subject to the Convert the Unfaithful ability (which changes the afflicted character's alignment and requires a save to not need an atonement at the end of the duration). The only thing stopping me are the meta-campaign rules in my region, which have some pretty steep costs for Atonement spells. I played a mod that featured an evil evangelist. I think the combat's terrain was meant to protect him a bit, too, but my enlarged tripper could reach 30 ft up with his guisarme... At any rate, that was a pretty wicked threat: Remove a PC from the campaign by turning him evil. I've actually played at least 3 mods that have had that threat, all from different sources.
JohnduBois 07-04-06, 11:12 PM	I played a mod that featured an evil evangelist. I think the combat's terrain was meant to protect him a bit, too, but my enlarged tripper could reach 30 ft up with his guisarme... At any rate, that was a pretty wicked threat: Remove a PC from the campaign by turning him evil. I've actually played at least 3 mods that have had that threat, all from different sources. That's odd... as a DM I would never allow an evangelist to remove someone from the campaign. The alignment-changing ability specifically states that the change is temporary unless the character wishes it to become permanent. If the PC doesn't want to stay evil, then they revert at the end of the ability's duration, with a Will save to not need to atone. If a Triad and Circle rep are allowing that ability to flat remove characters from the campaign for "being evil" if they can't make a Will save, and someone's read the mod and can verify these, I'd like to know where so that I don't play any characters I care about in that region.
DuctShuiTengu 07-05-06, 01:36 AM	I have trouble buying the removal of PCs from the campaign for having an effect temporarily change their alignment to evil. That said, the one rather nasty effect of that ability that I could see (beyond the obvious one of having one of the PCs start going after the rest of the party), is if it's used on Asheratis, since they immediately turn into a pile of sand if they ever stop worshipping Geshtai.
JohnduBois 07-05-06, 01:43 AM	Hmm... The asherati thing is an interesting twist... I think that if I was a DM, I'd let it go as a temporary crisis of faith.
Arvagor 07-05-06, 01:17 PM	Hmm... The asherati thing is an interesting twist...Meh... Just because your alignment was forcibly changed to something else doesn't mean you no longer venerate Geshtai -- you just may no longer have access to any of your class abilities if they depend on where your alignment is in relation to hers...
solbergb 07-05-06, 01:47 PM	Yeah, the mod with evangalist did NOT say anything about removing PC's. Evil aligned just means they're more likely to cooperate when the evangalist did charm or domination tricks. It might also mean at most that the character is temporarily under DM control, but I've never seen it actually played that way. As long as the PC ends the game with a legal alignment (due to effect wearing off, atonement or whatever) , the character sheet remains. The only way to instantly lose your character sheet is to attack another PC with lethal force without the consent of the player behind the PC. That's from an RPGA rule, not from any game rule. (the incharacter excuse being that you instantly shift to evil)
Simpi 07-07-06, 03:30 AM	it is considered cheesy to some extend but no rule prohibits this and there are dozens of builds out there that do exactly make use of this somehow strong combination. Of course there is rarely anything stopping DMs from witholding some of the "discretionary roleplaying experience" from said cheesy characters since generally only small amount of it is tied to specific things such as "retrieving item x without causing an alarm". Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
JamesMaissen 07-07-06, 12:49 PM	Of course there is rarely anything stopping DMs from witholding some of the "discretionary roleplaying experience" from said cheesy characters since generally only small amount of it is tied to specific things such as "retrieving item x without causing an alarm". Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad Somehow I don't see it as kosher to arbitrarily deny xp because in essence you don't like a character's build. There's rarely anything stopping a judge from arbitrarily doing many things, but it doesn't make it cricket. I guess I find it bad form in general for one to 'dissapprove' of another for how he elects to make his character. Perhaps because I've seen this taken to great extremes and abuses. But I'd like to think I would object to it regardless. James Maissen
mean_liar 07-07-06, 01:09 PM	Personally, I think that folks that adhere to the idea that alignment is generally immutable without some massive event to trigger a change (with accompanying penalties) to be old-school DMs basically holding over the previous versions of DnD's take on alignment. In specific regards to the transformation from Lawful to Neutral (for monks traveling down the path to barbarian-hood), it's not as large a leap as some would seem to think. Lawful implies adherence to a code of personal conduct, such as diligent training in unarmed combat on a daily basis, dietary restrictions, deference to your monkly master, and whatever other restrictions would be appropriate to your monk training. Ditching most, if not all of these restrictions when traveling in the wide world (ie, no longer training daily, eating meat and drinking alcohol, not really thinking you should be cleaning your master's house any more just because he's old and dangerous, etc) is not a difficult progression in a character to imagine. Only the intensity of the 'culture shock' would determine if the character became Nuetral or Chaotic. Penalizing a player for essentially not having played 1st or 2nd edition and internalizing those editions' bizarrely restrictive rules on mutability of character motivations is not really fair.