Monks and Alignment

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

For some classes (be they core or nor) it fits: a paladin has to be good to be a paladin. Of course it's a personality trait, and for paladins, that's OK. Or the priest of a chaotic good deity: she has to be either chaotic or good (or both). It has to be there, since the god would not take a character that doesn't share his outlook.

 

[Merlion]

Good and Evil arent personality traits either in the rules or reality. their objective states. The Law/Chaos alignment axis as presented in DnD basicaly consists of personality traits...free spiritedness, tradtionalism, self focus, discpline. and even in reality how often do the concepts of Order and Chaos directly obviously affect people? Yea it makes perfect sense that a paladin has to be good, since their a holy warrior. but whats that got to do with being Lawful?

 

[hong]

Actualy the way its put in DnD Law/Chaos is basicaly personality traits.

Nonsense. Law and Chaos can certainly be overarching forces in the cosmos, just like Good and Evil. Have a look at Moorcock's books for a start; and many Oriental cosmologies are often defined in terms of Law/Chaos.

 

[Merlion]

well in the statement you quoted I said in DND its personality traits. if you read the alignment descpretions in the PHB, thats pretty much what it Ohh well I should amend that...personality traits and political views(lots of government versus anachronistic type thing etc). I find the monk alignment restriction in particular to be very silly because as defined in DnD the monk has both lawful AND Chaotic traits. extreme discpline is lawful, but a monks self-fous is in DnD terms quite chaotic. and I still dont see what a Paladins status as a holy champion has to do with Law
Yes, I am aware that many fantasies are based on Order Versus Chaos. or rather...they use those words. Most such stories I have encountered are Good VS Evil stories that just call the oposed forces Order and Chaos instead of good and evil...I havent read Moorcocks stuff but I've heard quite a bit about it and from everything I can tell, its one of those.
Much of this of course is a matter of opnions/beliefs. but like I said I find it hard to deny that the alignment descpretions of Law and Chaos in DnD by and large describe personality aspects and to a lesser extent views on poltics and governmental styles.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Good and Evil arent personality traits either in the rules or reality. their objective states. The Law/Chaos alignment axis as presented in DnD basicaly consists of personality traits...free spiritedness, tradtionalism, self focus, discpline. and even in reality how often do the concepts of Order and Chaos directly obviously affect people? Yea it makes perfect sense that a paladin has to be good, since their a holy warrior. but whats that got to do with being Lawful?

Good means you help others, evil means you only help yourself, and even harm others for your own good.

 

[Merlion]

those arent just personality traits...there also actions. Good is doing whats right and refraining from whats wrong...even if its something you want to do. Also good is purety and evil is corruption. But like I said I dont really want a philosophical debate...my point within this thread is, I dont think that the Law/Chaos alignment aspects as presented in the PHB are things that should be used as restrictions...since as presented all the represented are aspects of a person that to me are pretty much entirly the province of roleplaying the characters personality. And as mentioned before, the monk alignment restriction within the way things are presented in this game, is to me self contradictory.

 

[uberkitty]

It's my understanding that the monk is one of the most powerful character classes, and I always figured that was why the monk's alignment was limited. In the class creation engine, IIRC, alignment limitation is one of the ways you balance an otherwise overpowered class. And if you assume that there's going to be some kind of alignment limitation, Lawful makes more sense than any other.

 

[Merlion]

I could be wrong but I believe some designer or other has actualy stated that they do not use alignment restrictions as game balance factors. And if they do they shouldnt. Really overall the only alignment restriction to any PC class I can see at all would be Paladins being limited to Any Good. The 3e druid restriction of "most be at least partialy neutral" isnt to bad either. the others make no sense to me.

 

[Zeddan]

It's my understanding that the monk is one of the most powerful character classes, and I always figured that was why the monk's alignment was limited. In the class creation engine, IIRC, alignment limitation is one of the ways you balance an otherwise overpowered class. And if you assume that there's going to be some kind of alignment limitation, Lawful makes more sense than any other.

How can alignment balance a powerful class when outside of roleplaying, alignment has no effects on the game. My original intent behind this question was a really cool background story for a barbarian that settled down at a monastary. Because of the alignment restriction this is not possible according to the rules. So thus my civilized Barbarian is not possible ( Itend to ignore the non-multiclassing rule)

 

[Crothian]

My original intent behind this question was a really cool background story for a barbarian that settled down at a monastary. Because of the alignment restriction this is not possible according to the rules. So thus my civilized Barbarian is not possible ( Itend to ignore the non-multiclassing rule)

You can be a Barbarian, become Lawful, and aquire the monk class all by the core rules.