Alignment & newly minted PCs of higher level

Looking over [MENTION=29558]Mowgli[/MENTION] 's new character Breninyr I noticed that the character is a NG monk.

This brings up a couple of issues of alignment:
1) What is our policy towards alignment change for characters?
2) Should we allow backstory changes in alignment that take the character away from the class's initial alignment requirement?

I'm torn on the alignment change issue. When I first started playing alignment years (and years) ago alignment changes were a big deal. I don't think it is so much anymore but it still gives me a bit of pause. I actually toyed with the idea of changing Fury's alignment from CN to NG based on personality changes he's gone through over the course of adventuring. Part of the reason I haven't is because I didn't really know if it was a good idea to open that possibility.

Let me say, I don't think Mowgli is trying anything bad but I'm not sure I like the precedent of allowing characters with alignments different than the initial required alignment, even with 'Ex-<character>' rules currently in play.

Hmmm. Of all the possibilities I was going over in my head when you PM'd me this was not one I'd hit upon, probably because to me this is a non-issue.

EDIT: In reading over my answer it looks like it could sound more . . . strident . . . than it did in my head when I was writing it . I am feeling a little defensive, but not so much as the following makes it seem. Please take it as simple a listing of my thoughts as to why it should be allowed.

It's allowed within the Core Rules, it doesn't (as far as I can tell) present an issue where characters of a particular class could gain mechanical advantage over those of other classes, and doesn't present any accounting issues. These are the reasons we've used so far for (reluctantly) departing from RAW.

We've established a precedent of sticking with RAW where it works mechanically for a living world.

For me it presents opportunity for character development (if it happens in game) and interesting back story (if it happens on creation).

There is a limitation built in - no further advancement in that class.

Finally, (to me at least) this is very much less "jarring" than the character rebuild that is allowed in LPF, where we simply ignore the fact that until the rebuild the "new" character had completely different abilities than they do now . . . Or the distinct possibility that a player will have a character die and simply replace them with the exact same character (not likely, but allowed).

For higher level guys, I have to say there is a whiff of munchkinism when a character has an alignment change built into their backstory. I want to be clear: I'm absolutely sure that's not the case here, given that Mowgli is easily one of the most anti-munchkin players I know. But if I can say this without meaning any offense to anyone, my gut reaction is still that it feels kind of wrong.

On the other side, I always treat the level-one alignment as fuzzy. How you think your character will behave can be very different from how your character actually does behave once he steps into the DWI. At least for me. Fury walked out of the slums with a tough-guy attitude and then came around, and the way he's been RP'd reflects that. I think (1) is definitely fine.

I tend to agree with Systole. It's something that has the potential for abuse, but it should definitely be allowable in some fashion, both for the character development reasons GE alluded to and for the difficulty to pin down a PCs alignment without having played them that Systole mentioned. For example, it surprises me to find out that Fury is CN: I would have pegged him for CG, and, at this point, I think he is definitely operating within the good end of the spectrum. So in that case, for instance, I think not changing wouldn't make sense (not that you necessarily should - just an illustration).

In general I agree with allowing alignment changes.

But in Breninyr's case, I have a couple issues.
A monk requires dedicated focus and training to do the things he does. A sensei even more so, as he has to analyze the fight, form the strategy in his mind, translate that into what is possible for his ally to do, relay that strategy as a bardic performance and do all that in time for the information to be useful. The art of war is actually a science, not an art.

Worshiping a deity so much that the deity grants you spells to shape and mold the world to its desires requires dedication. Turning to an almighty and saying "I like your ideas, but that one over there has some interesting points too" is not going to get you empowered to change the world.

So, in my opinion, both of his class choices require strict dedication. His back story reads more like "eh, got bored, moved on to something else".

Paladin, monk and cleric should have a hard time switching between alignments. They other classes, not so much.

Now, looking over the deities mentioned.
Quaren: diplomacy and commerce: These fit more as LG to me than NG. You make a choice, you stick by it, either by pact and bond of your word with diplomacy, or by set laws of commerce.

Pascal: Learning, Craft, Knowledge, Architecture, Mathematics, Medicine: All of these are sciences. They all require dedication and the same action taken produce the same result. So, I feel he should be LN.

Tessel: CN definitely. Do what you must to get the job done. The very definition of chaotic neutral.

So, I can see Breninyr having a bit more dedication and turning away from the monastery to the more exacting direct worship of Pascal if he had focused on the science path, or direct worship of Quaren for the "Protector of the community" path.

So, adding a bit more focus to Breninyr and a slight rewrite of the deities is the direction I am leaning in this particular case. It allows him to stay within LG or even LN and switching focus more towards community protection.

Mowgli said:

We've established a precedent of sticking with RAW where it works mechanically for a living world.

Click to expand...

Until/unless RAW doesn't work for a living world or our mutual conception of the world. It's why we discuss and review issues and have disallowed portions of some of our sources. And that's why I'm bringing it up now, because I'm not convinced allowing alignment change is a good thing for LPF.

Mowgli said:

There is a limitation built in - no further advancement in that class.

Click to expand...

Except this really isn't a limitation at all, particularly if alignment changes are allowed it could be changed back to lawful and another level of monk taken. Or if you've already taken all the monk levels you desire.

SK, while you raise some interesting points, Breninyr's background isn't the question in this thread. The question raised is the purely mechanical alignment change and whether we should allow it. Mowgli's character was only the catalyst and I don't think it is appropriate to analyze his background in such a fashion.

Likewise, if you disagree with the decisions made regarding deities and their builds please make a separate proposal. This thread isn't the place for discussion on that either. Thanks.

Alignment change in and of itself is not a bad thing. Characters change over the course of their adventuring career. To say one is locked into their alignment regardless of what events of revelations their character may have during the course of their adventuring career seems heavy handed, especially when the core rules allow it.

Now there may be isolated cases where alignment change is abused. If people see that happening I think that is best handled on a case by case basis and not by prohibiting alignment change as a whole.

We are mature and responsible people. If we see someone abusing alignment changes we can question that particular instance, talk to the player in question and see if we still feel the same. I suspect this would be an extreme minority of cases as from what I have seen we have a pretty responsible group of players.

We do have a strong tendency towards RAW. The core rules have been approved for quite some time now and I don't really like seeing us go back and tweak those ruling more from what is an assumed base. We've ruled to follow RAW even when we think there might be a better way to handle things simply to keep the playing field even for new players to LPF. And in this case I don't see alignment change as the issue, but rather players that might abuse alignment change (which I don't see Mowgli trying to do).

Ok, I'm willing to let it ride until we see if it is a real issue or not.

I'm late to the party on this one, partly due to juggling increased RL and board obligations, partly because I'm not sure how much I add to this. I'm not sure how much I'm a fan of strict alignments in general. I think the alignments (purposely) aren't defined strictly enough to usually make hard-line decisions as to what is or isn't X. "Lawful," for example, doesn't have to mean "follows the law" so much as "is bound strictly to X tenet," where X can be anything from always be good to cops to "people who wear purple always deserve respect."

Yes, the latter is a silly example, but I think it actually hews to RAW, and is one of the reasons I've always been a bit incredulous about alignment-restricted classes / abilities, but that's my baggage, I suppose. I like alignments as general guides to character, but I'm not as keen on them as straitjackets.