Chaosmancer
Legend
The point being that the archetype clearly lends itself to a chaotic character. Not a lawful character.
What more evidence do you want? I've talked about the bloodline, the emphasis on uncontrollable and unpredictable power, the points of having obscure and mysterious motivations (lending to Chaos). There is nothing about the presentation of the sorcerer before the Clockwork Soul that had any strong leanings towards Lawful, and there were plenty about leaning towards chaotic characters.
I understand that a player can easily choose to ignore that, but that doesn't change the archetype being what it is. Heck, DnD introduced Sorcerers in 3rd edition right? And it explicitly says they tend towards Chaos over Law.
I'm not saying a lawful Sorcerer is wrong. I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm only saying that the archetype is clearly meant to be more chaotic leaning than lawful leaning.
I didn't think it was a thing people would pounce on like I was stealing their kids lollipop by saying that Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks aren't exactly the most lawful archetypes in the game.
You are wrong. Can a lawful character be a sorcerer? Sure. But that is not the archetype. It never has been.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we were responding to how that seems to have little basis on how these characters are generally portrayed.
And, yes, I said everyone instead of "everyone who was responding to you on this specific point" because it was shorter and I didn't think I had to specify that I didn't mean every single person on the thread.
I'm not trying to be rude. Ignorance is literally not knowing something. That is why I added that part in paranthesis about it not being bad. Every example you were shown you responded with "I don't know those characters". That is ignorance. Which again, isn't bad. I'm ignorant of some of those characters.
But of you get offended by the idea that you don't know characters you admit to not knowing... I'm not sure what to say.
Yes, I do read posts. Sequentially and respond in order. Notice how that bit was written before you told me you had seen the movie.
I thought about going back and rewriting it, but I figured that would be slightly dishonest and change the flow of what I was saying. So I decided not to backtrack and edit my post.
Not sure where you are getting 1923, unless you are talking about animated shorts. The first Disney movie is generally considered snow White, from 1937.
But sure, 1992 isn't in the first half of disney's existence. Egg on my face.
It is an annoyance of mine when people respond with absurd points and then act like they disprove what the other side is saying. We (royally, as in the people who were responding to you) were responding to your rule and pointing that that the archetypes involved don't make a lot of sense. There are a plethora of "lawful" individuals who wouldn't be considered to have good social skills deserving of a buff, while there are lots of chaotic characters who are far better at rallying people around their cause and getting people to work together.
You are free to ignore our criticism of your rules, but that doesn't make our criticism invalid.
If you refuse to clarify your rules to explain what I am misunderstanding then I have no obligation to act like I am wrong in my understanding. I'm not a mind-reader or a soothsayer after all.
Tied to an alignment, as in can't be other alignments? No, of course they aren't.
But a Lawful Good Druid who follows city ordinances would be weird, and a Chaotic Neutral Paladin who parties hard and doesn't care about what image they present would be fairly against archetype. Can you play those characters? Of course. But there is a tendency, and when trying to prove the point that Charisma and Chaotic characters is a fairly linked set, making your charisma bonus to lawful characters seem odd and out of place, pointing out that tendency amongst charisma using classes to be chaotic is a good point I think.
The point was demonstrating that, again, the most charismatic characters in fiction are usually not the most lawful characters in fiction. Making your approach much more off-beat than the archetypes and styles we typically see.
Which again, ignore the criticism if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the criticism exists.
Really? Thought it was Gygax and Arneson who made DnD. Moorcock wrote novels that existed before DnD. Looks Andersen did the same.
Why would I talk to authors who didn't design DnD about the Design of DnD? Because they wrote books dealing with Order and Chaos? Then I might as well go back and talk to Homer as well. (Except he didn't write anything). The very idea of Centaurs and Satyrs was of the wild passions of nature overcoming society. This is an ancient idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groan all you want. Every single instance of torture I have ever seen happen in a DnD game came about because a prisoner refused to give up what the party wanted. If your goal is to reduce torture, then declaring characters NPCs and forcing players to switch characters will not reduce it as much as removing the impetus for the action.
