Monks and Alignment

[Zeddan]

Why does the monk have to be lawful in alignment?

The argument for discipline does not make sense, as you can be chaotic and still have discipline.

I can even imagine an order of monks that has no real structure.

Is it an old hangover from 1st ed, or is it a flavor rule?

 

[ArcOfCorinth]

Flavor probably.

 

[Janos Antero]

1e Easter Egg that held enough flavor to be worthwhile in this edition I think. Much like the Paladin, it just adds a bit of uniqueness to the class, and helps define it in many people's minds.

While I agree that discipline is technically not related to law/chaos, most people do strongly associate the two, and it does help define the monk concept type.

 

[Destil]

It's a problematic rule at best, IMHO. After all, a wizard clearly should need or at least benifit from dicipline, as would a cleric... so why don't these classes either require non-chaotic or at least give bonuses if your lawful? Illogical flavor, for me...

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a problematic rule at best, IMHO. After all, a wizard clearly should need or at least benifit from dicipline, as would a cleric... so why don't these classes either require non-chaotic or at least give bonuses if your lawful? Illogical flavor, for me...

Probably it depends on what you think of discipline. If you mean being able to focus yourself while training in something, evidently everyone needs it to learn better and faster. I thought it meant strong adherence to a conduct or rule, without questioning: a knight must blindly follow his lord's orders, a samurai may never question his duties... it seems to me that they wanted Buddhist-like Monks who have to trust their masters for years and years before they see any improvement to their abilities.

I remember an old movie (was it Karate Kid?) with the young apprentice always asking questions to his master, because he couldn't notice he was learning anything, and the master made him promise not to ask anymore, just to trust, until one day he suddenly noticed at once how much he has learned already.

It is only flavor, but I think it comes from oriental cultures, and I like the idea after all.

 

[Merlion]

Your right Zeddan it doesnt make any sense...none of the alignment restrictions really do accept from a couple of specfic perspectives.
And in fact the Law/Chaos axis of alignment makes no sense to me period.

 

[RigaMortus]

/agree Merlion

If a "supposed" Chaotic person follows the law, would that not make them Lawful? And if a Lawful person has to bend the rules for the common good, would that not be a chaotic act and make that person Chaotic?

It is impossible for a person to ALWAYS be Lawful or ALWAYS be Chaotic. And isn't that what the alignment system is all about?

Then you have Neutral, which is NEITHER Lawful nor Chaotic. These people are just screwed, because no matter what action they take, it will either be orderly (lawful) or disorderly (chaotic). They might as well shoot themselves in the head :/

Of course I am talking extremes here.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If a "supposed" Chaotic person follows the law, would that not make them Lawful?

Not if that person does it just because it is convinient.

And if a Lawful person has to bend the rules for the common good, would that not be a chaotic act and make that person Chaotic?

You don't switch from 0 to 100 in 1 second! But that course of action would indeed put you a step closer to losing your lawful alignment: the common good has nothing to do with law or chaos.

It is impossible for a person to ALWAYS be Lawful or ALWAYS be Chaotic. And isn't that what the alignment system is all about?

Not really. Characters are not set in stone (outsiders might behave that way, though). It's an outlook, a way of life. Chaotic characters tend to follow their whims, and don't care about the law, while a lawful person sticks to his code, be it a personal one or one thrust upon him, from order or kingdom...

Then you have Neutral, which is NEITHER Lawful nor Chaotic. These people are just screwed, because no matter what action they take, it will either be orderly (lawful) or disorderly (chaotic). They might as well shoot themselves in the head :/

They either don't mind about law or chaos, or actually favor the balance.

Of course I am talking extremes here.

Yes, and that's the problem: It's not always extremes, in fact it's that only on rare occasions.

 

[Merlion]

). It's an outlook, a way of life.
Yes, and that's the problem: It's not always extremes, in fact it's that only on rare occasions.

Actualy the way its put in DnD Law/Chaos is basicaly personality traits. and I dont think players should be required to give their characters certain personality traits in order to be of a certain core class. The monk thing is especialy silly since by the nebulous DnD definitions of law and chaos, Monks actualy have several traits of both.

 

[isirga eth]

So...

...where do I find out what's known about 3.5? is there a list of all the disclosed changes somewhere, or something?