Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1912498" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>I don't get that, not at all. By the code, a single transgression of evil or gross break with code will revoke his status, but an alignment shift, ala the lawful good clause, which will require a series of transgressions over time will also cause the change. Thats not "more strictly" in my book, but clearly our books are not the same.If there is a problem with the BARBARIAN CLASS having an alignment restriction, then i would argue that that shows a problem with the barbarian class and would not be evidence of there being aproblem with alignment. (Hence, in my game, i changed the CLASS.)One might also argue that, if the arguement hinges of there being a contradiction between barbarian CULTURES (when they are described as lawful societies) and the barbarian CLASS having a chaotic restriction, one can argue this is also an issue of mis-equating the CULTURE and the CLASS, and by simply calling them BERSERKERS and realizing they are a small percentage of those cultures we are describing and not the norm, then the problem is no more.IE, the issues are not with alignment, but with mixing culture/class and with class definitions, where it exists. No, i am arguing that since alignment never restricts your choices it is not proscriptive. You can do what you want. Your alignment will change to follow suit, but be based on your character's overall choices over time, not "this next choice" or "this one choice."that seems obvious. But we seem to have different books.an alignment change will occur once the characters choices over time indicate that the old alignment is no longer an adequate representation. Its not a case of "just one more time and bang" but "on the whole, which fits better?"Which,if one buys that, may be an argument against building classes with alignment restrictions, but doesn't indicate a problem with alignments or a contradiction in alignments system.Actuallyt, no. At the best you get that MAYBE some classes have proscriptive elemtns within their design... and you can argue whether or not that is right.A bard can do lawful things. At any given moment, his alignment will not prevent him from chosing a lawful course of action. his class restriction will not either. The fear of repercussions in class won't either. This is not a "one more time" thing but rather "if the character overall is lawful" then his alignment will change to reflect that. It really tho is starting more and more like you don't have an issue with the alignment system but instead have a problem with some classes definitions. But amazingly, thats handled within the rules by the GMs ability to tweak classes.Unless one realizes the changes i made were NOT TO THE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM but rather instead was TO THE CLASS DEFINITIONS. I did not change chaotic, i did not change lawful. I changed the bard class definitions. i changed the barbarian class definitions. I thought that was obvious.Alignment system not broken. TRUE IMOSome classes not right for my game. TRUE IMOAs i have stated several times already, alignment is both means and ends, goal and methods and is related to context of the setting and the campaign.As for "knowing what their conduct was", sorry if i dont take a couple paragraphs on an internet chat as sufficient to say i do know that. And, as i am pretty sure i never said alignment wasn't ideaology, i guess we have gotten to the "rephrase you arguement to suit my needs" portion of the debate... which means i will be gone soon.it wasn't meant to be a complete retelling of all your problems, merely a point. if for every point i was required to restate all your problems, this would get to be more work than fun.i disagree. I think that if one breaks alignment down and tries to create a system where a character is black or white one or the other, one gets a much worse system than the one we have. I do not have a problem with the MEANS being different from the ENDS in terms of qualitative appraisals. i don't find it too complex or cumbersome or contradictory in practice. Easy, i believe that people have rights and i act in such a manner, and i do so regardless of whether or not law and custom say I have to, ought to, or even should. When the rule of law gave minorities less rights, INDIVIDUALS still existed who afforded them those rights by their actions.and now we are even reversing my conclusions. cool. Well, nothing more to be gained here. Actually, by the time i was done changing classes for my game, i had changed IIRC every one but the fighter, cleric and wizard IIRC. I found most of the core classes to be "close but not quite what i wanted" in a number of ways. So if looked at as "how many did i change" it was a lot, but most changes were for "non-alignment" reasons.As for alignment specifically... i removed the alignment restrictions from MONK, BARD and BARBARIAN classes. I ADDED alignment restrictions to the DRUID and RANGER, imposing the old "within one of god" the cleric got  and required them to take a god, of course (which applied to the paladin.)  So, if removing alignment restrictions from three classea and adding alignment restriction to two is see by you as a condemnation of the alignment system, and not a indication of a issue with the CLASS DEFINITIONS, then i really cannot relate.Again, to be blunt, if someone told me they had changed the CLASSES, i would think that might indicate they had issues with the classes. I did not change the alignment system, i changed classes.because to entertain such a discussion about a historical figure brings into the discussion a whole lot of "about the historical people" stuff. I am not going to take the time to do the research, which would include actual reports from the time as well as multiple comtradictory references on more general "after the fact" and finally a thorough grounding in th society, culture and religious nature of the times.Thats way too much work for a fictional mechanic set for a totally different societal framework.it really seems a rather silly waste of time. But, it doesn't require that. first off, i don't think neutral = null, so i dont accept that getting a result of neutral means you got nothing. Secondly, yes, two very different characters can share the same general alignment. I think the term "quite different" was used in the actual text. this is a strength IMO, not a flaw.AFAIK, and IMX following the letter of the rule on alignment, which puts it as a non-proscriptive thing, a thing reflecting your actions, "not a straightjacket", etc... it works fine.Its when you try and ignore all those, when you try and turn it into a solid black and white irrespective of its intended flexibility, that there becomes a problem.Its like saying, "Once i make them proscriptive, i find nine isn't enough" and that brings us back to the "don't do that!" part of my earlier post.no, i am defeding it based on giving it the very fluidity and flexibility it was written specifically to have, on its very derived and not driving nature.Lets look again at LITERALLY what it says..."It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."LITERALLY, the rul establisheds it is not proscriptive in that it is NOT, literally!!! a tool "for restricting your character."If one follows this rule literally... thats what you get. Its trying to mprh it into a proscriptive tool that is being, in this case, "not applied literally."Now, on the other hand, some classes do have proscriptive elements, so maybe this thread should be titled "This is what i really dont like about classes" or some such.[/QUOTE]

Verification