D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 monk...lawful = disciplined?

[pawsplay]

Barbarians lose the ability to rage once they become lawful.

So I'm hearing a "yes," there; barbarians cannot both embrace a lawful path and develop the discipline of a warrior of rage.

 

[rusty2667]

What does losing this ability with an alignment change have to do with being disciplined? I'm honestly not able to see your point. Could you expand on it a little?

In any case, I'm off to work. Have good one.

 

[pawsplay]

Coming from you? Priceless.

For everything else, there's Mastercard.

Well, if you happen to feel like rebutting the points I've made, just let me know.

 

[Dandu]

Well, if you happen to feel like rebutting the points I've made, just let me know.

Because that is such a fruitful activity and consequently ranks highly on my to-do list.

Admin here. Dandu, it's fine (and expected!) to disagree with someone. We ask that people not be a jerk about it, though. Your sarcasm is really rude; if you can't discuss something without insults, better to not post. Thanks - PM me with questions. ~ Piratecat

Lawful groups would have higher skill ratings than Chaotics, which does not appear to be true from the monsters and societies represented in the core books.

Skill wise, individual skill is mechanically represented by skill points. Any individual regardless of alignment will have the same skill points in a skill all else being equal. Mechanically, any group is going to be as capable as any other group of differing alignment with the same setup.

I see nothing indicating that Lawful characters have more self-control than Chaotic ones.

The classes with lawful alignment prerequisites, incidentally, are all ones that you'd expect for disciplined characters, ie, Monk, Paladin, Kensai, etc.

Conversely, you get no points for guessing which alignment cannot be a Frenzied Berserker, the prestige class that is all about flying into uncontrollable rages.

 

[irdeggman]

In Dark Sun dwarves have this thing called "dwarven focus" which is an unrelentingly strict code of behaviour that is to pursue the point of their "focus". They lost xp and received other penalties if they did not follow their focus and gained benefits if they did.

Dwarves have in D&D in general (and in Dark Sun specifically) a tendency towards lawful behavior.


This is an example of where in D&D terms maintaining "discipline" goes hand in hand with being lawful.

 

[Popertop]

you are all forgetting another aspect of Law vs Chaos

Chaotic characters live on instinct, going with their gut,
whereas Lawful characters rely on thinking, rejecting emotional response.

I still think monks aren't good enough to be considered Lawful only,
in addition to the fact that Barbarians are less restricted than Monks are
according to alignment.

Barbarains can be anything except lawful, so I think Monks
should be able to be anything except chaotic.

Really it doesn't make sense.

 

[pawsplay]

Skill wise, individual skill is mechanically represented by skill points. Any individual regardless of alignment will have the same skill points in a skill all else being equal. Mechanically, any group is going to be as capable as any other group of differing alignment with the same setup.

So that again says creatures of all alignments are equally dedicated skill learners.

The classes with lawful alignment prerequisites, incidentally, are all ones that you'd expect for disciplined characters, ie, Monk, Paladin, Kensai, etc.

But your argument requires that there be none that allow Chaotic characters. Unfortunately, Archmage is staring right at me.

Conversely, you get no points for guessing which alignment cannot be a Frenzied Berserker, the prestige class that is all about flying into uncontrollable rages.

Is an unarmed strike a particularly Lawful act? Because that's essentially the gist of what you are saying, that because a class with an alignment restriction has a particularly ability, that said ability is representative of the alignment.

 

[Umbran]

I see folks are getting snippy, snarky, and personal. Please stop.

Also, please allow me to remind you all - you get no prize for "winning" a debate like this. There's no special bonus package for proving your way of looking at it is right, and others are wrong. It just makes you look like an annoying egotist when you try.

So, you know, be nice to each other. Thanks.