No it doesn't. Unlike Bard, which has as part of the class, jack of all trades, wandering, independence, etc. and Paladin which has the oaths, Sorcerer has nothing that predisposes it towards any alignment. All of the bloodlines are just intuitive use of magic and have no influence on the character's personality.
You as the player can say, I want my PC to be chaotic to match the bloodline, but you are no more correct or backed up by the subclass than the player who chooses lawful.
Yes. The bloodline is chaotic. Bloodline. Not personality of the character. Bloodline. It is very specific in that subclass, "Your innate magic comes from the forces of chaos that underlie the order of creation." That's all that is tied to chaos.
So what more do I want? I want something that actually influences the character's personality like Bard and Paladin have, except it doesn't exist for Sorcerer.
Pounce? Nobody "pounced" on you over this. You made the argument about chaos, which we disagreed with and responded to. You apparently didn't mean chaos, but we aren't mind readers. We can only respond to what you say, so you should have said what you meant. That's all.
View attachment 134213
There has never been an alignment archetype at all for Sorcerer. At least not for 3e(the origin of the class) and 5e. Maybe there was in 4e, but I didn't really play that edition and don't know or care.
So, you are literally going to ignore the text from 3.5? And you are going to continue claiming that chaotic power in no way influences a character Arcehtype into being chaotic?
And, you are going to provide zero evidence to refute my multiple points of evidence, except to say "blood doesn't make you chaotic" (which, actually, it can. It isn't exactly scientific, but people have put forth the blood types correspond to personality for years, and this is literaly a raging storm of magical energy for blood, which, you know, might affect a person more than being AB negative)
So, since you have zero evidence to refute me and ignore the evidence I provide, even the specific evidence from the sorcerers origin in 3rd edition which specifically calls them out as leaning chaotic. I'm done arguing with you. It is pointless, and you have disproven nothing.
I'm talking about actual justice. The good kind, which was crystal clear from the context of the discussion that I've been having. European history is irrelevant.
Right, because the defintion of actual justice, you know, the good kind, has never been in debate at all. Nor have multiple executions committed in the name of justice not over time been seen as, perhaps, a little less just than they may have appeared when they were committed.
Again, try to avoid sweeping claims like "a just execution can never be evil".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for proving my point that its hard to feel empathy for a fictional being.
I never argued otherwise. I offered a practical solution to the problem of torture that didn't involve slapping the players hands via the alignment stick.
None of that is relevant. I expect (at my table at least) players to play the alignment, traits and bonds of their character.
If that means accepting surrender so be it. If that means resorting to torture (i.e. they're evil aligned) so be it.
Play your damn characters.
I am playing my character. You are the one who is forcing me to potentially risk the destruction of the city by just giving up when the enemy refuses to answer any questions.
I tend to play characters who are self-sacrificing. And that includes sacrificing their ability to sleep at night so that the townspeople aren't killed. If you don't like that, don't put me in a situation where I have to shrug and just say "Well, I'm too pure hearted to do anything else, you are free to go."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed like you were trying to assert that there are bunches of people who agree with you. And what do you mean by "these characters"? Do you mean chaotic characters? What basis do you have for saying that these characters don't experience some difficulty in achieving their goals socially due to their chaotic and unlawful nature?
The characters you said you had no knowledge of? Those characters. And, how about the basis of (for the ones I am familiar with) those characters not having issues due to not being persuasive, but because of ingrained social status. Aladdin doesn't have a problem working with others, he and Jasmine cooridinate effortlessly in the marketplace, but he is poor and homeless and has to steal to survive, and that is what holds back his goals of... not doing those things. That and him being a good person.
No, you didn't just say I was ignorant of the characters that I had said was I unfamiliar with. You said I seemed ignorant of anything except characters from the works of JRR Tolkien. That's belittling, and it's unwarranted.
I apoligize that the only thing you seemed to recognize was Tolkien? It was literally the only media (some of them quite widespread) that you showed any knowledge of. I was recognizing that you showed knowledge of that subject, the only one I saw you say you knew.
This doesn't make sense. I posted that I'd seen the movie before you wrote that bit because that's the post you were responding to. It isn't on me that you write your responses at the same time as you read through the posts to which you're responding. If you respond to one of my posts, I'm going to assume you actually read it before writing and posting your response.
Feel free to assume that, but if you extended me the same courtesy, you would have seen me responding to the part where you said you had seen the movie, clearly indicating that I was responding as I read, since I clearly had to have read the part I was responding to.
Yes, short films are also movies.
Whatever, I'm not getting into a pointless discussion on what qualifies as a movie, when your average TV show is 45 minutes long, and the average animated short was like 5 minutes. And any one in the modern era who went to see a 15 minute movie would likely not be very impressed by that advertising.
I haven't ignored your "criticism" as you call it. In fact, I've responded to every post. No, what makes your criticism invalid is that the lawful characters you're talking about may have low Charisma scores and the chaotic characters may have high Charisma scores. In fact, that's just what your description of those characters suggests.
But that in itself is only one explanation, and it doesn't justify giving a charisma bonus to lawful characters, when the most famously high charisma characters tend to be Chaotic. You are acting like Chaotic characters are somehow anti-social, when time and again that is not what is portrayed.
I have no idea what you don't understand. All I can say is the arguments you're making are off-base. The mechanic that I described in broad strokes is pretty simple. If there's something you feel you've misunderstood, feel free to ask questions.
I explained before what I believed your mechanic was, you said it wasn't your place to correct my misinterpretations. But now you want me to ask questions so you can correct any misinterpretations?
I believe I do understand your mechanic. You give a low bonus to charisma checks to anyone with the lawful alignment, under the belief (I believe mistaken) that the lawful alignment lends itself most easily to people cooperating and working together. Which, it does not. As we have multiple examples of chaotic characters, cooperating and working together, based on their smooth talking and charismatic skills. Far more than highly lawful individuals.
Which you then dismiss, claiming that must be because the lawful characters have a low charisma (the thing you said they should have a boost to, indicating their should have a high effective charisma) and that the chaotic characters have a high charisma (which, without the bonus, should be effectively lower than the lawful characters)
I mean, you do realize that, in effective terms, a +2 to Charisma rolls is the same as being 4 pts higher right? So, if your rule was something that went into effect, Some of these lawful characters we've mentioned would have to have incredibly low charisma scores.
By "tied to", I meant associated with, as in having ties to. Obviously, I don't think it's a good point, and you haven't said why you think it's a good point. Feel free to state your reasons at any time.
Associated with? Then yes, I did and I stated my point.
If Lawful characters should have higher effective charismas than Chaotic characters (the point and result of your rule) then why are the majority of Charisma classes Chaotic archetypes "tied to" ideas and themes of chaotic individuals? It is, yet again, another indication that Charisma is closer associated with Chaos than it is with Law.
Well, again while I might agree that Jafar and Aladdin are not the most "lawful" characters in fiction, you've done nothing to demonstrate that they are the most charismatic characters in fiction. I mean, I'm having a hard time thinking of either of them influencing anybody to do anything. Sure, Jafar tricks Aladdin into going into the Cave of Wonders, but that's about it, and he's aided by magic. And even if any of the characters you've cited are social geniuses that are far more persuasive than any "lawful" counterexample, that's nothing that a higher Charisma score can't explain.
Which again, having a higher effective Charisma is the exact goal of your rule. So, if you assume all those characters you aren't familiar with are Chaotic, and more charismatic than their lawful counterparts, then we have put forth around, what was it, 10 character pairs that show that your rule seems to be unsupported by the archetypes?
That is fairly significant. I know "all of fiction" is much larger, but fiction does tend to repeat itself, hence the idea of archetypes, and so if a significant chunk can be shown to share traits, it can be assumed that a non-insignifcant portion will follow.
Where do you think Gygax and Arneson got it from? Why do you think they called it Law and Chaos? I'll tell you because you don't seem to know. They called it that because that's what Andersen and Moorcock called it in their books, the genre of which D&D was written to evoke.
So they adapted an idea that worked well in novels and poorly in the game. Again, that doesn't mean I should talk to Moorcock and Andersen about DnD not working right. That would be like going and talking to Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko about the failure of the Last Airbender movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Sure, they made the source material, but the thing I have a problem with they didn't have anything to do with.
