Monks and Alignment

[Merlion]

If I was you I'd talk to the DM about ignoring the alignment restrictions as well as most or all of them are really based on certain perspectives. theres no real reason why a barbarian cant be lawful...a barbarian is just a warrior from a "primitive" culture. in fact many such cultures are quite bound by rules and traditions. Likewise as I have said so many times before the only "lawful" thing about monks is they are highly discplined. I dont see why having one "lawful" personality trait as part of a classes nature should require an alignment restriction. By the same reasoning as things are presented in the PHB, wizards should most definitly have to be Lawful and it could easily be said that Sorcerers should HAVE to be Chaotic or at least be prohibited from being Lawful...but their not. the alignment restrictions are mostly holdovers from the early days of DnD...that and flavour. but I feel flavour should be determined on a campaign by campaign basis

 

[Merlion]

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

Yea but he would loose his Rage ability and be unable to continue to advance as a barbarian even if you(wisely) ignore the monks special multiclassing restriction. Now admitedly barbarians and monks alignment aside are at almost oposite ends of the spectrum just in their aproach...if he adopts the monk lifestyle its possible he wouldnt really want to advance as a barbarian much anymore. but it would be interesting to see a character who embodied those too drasticaly different aproachs at once.

 

[Crothian]

In the book Heroes of High Favor: Half Orcs, it has a prestige class and small section that talks about Barbarian/Monks. It's an interesting take on things and might be of help with this type of character.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

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.

IMO, the point was not to restrict but instead have those classes represent what people imagined as 'iconic'

Paladin is L because the class is inspired from the crusaders: Templars, Hospitaliers, etc. Strict organizations with codes, complex hierarchies. A definite lawful trait.

Isn't there a Dragon with paladin classes for all alignments? There were some in the previous editions as well. So the concept of a holy warrior is familiar in DnD. The Paladin is simply one of those, made core for historic reasons I guess. they've been part of the game for so long...

The same goes for monks. They're traditionally viewed as having to serve a master or in a monastery for years, an happy servant who might become enlightened someday. Our iconic monk lives in world filled with intricate rituals and a strict obedience to a religious code. Definitely lawful as well...

 

[Merlion]

The same goes for monks. They're traditionally viewed as having to serve a master or in a monastery for years, an happy servant who might become enlightened someday. Our iconic monk lives in world filled with intricate rituals and a strict obedience to a religious code. Definitely lawful as well...

Well wizards have the same thing...accept to a school or master rather than a monastary. So why dont they have to be lawful? and in the PHB monks are actualy spoken of as not being religious at all...that almost none of them truly worship a deity they might just "meditate on their likeness".
The Paladin in this game has just gotten locked into a single view of "Holy Warrior". Why their would be only one type of holy/divine warrior, but theirs clerics for every god or godess is beyond me. Of course theirs also the issue of how the Paladin and Cleric sort of step on each others toes place-in-the-world wise but I digress...

 

[thegreatbuddha]

WotC kinda shot themselves in the foot with the alignment restriction. Barbarians must be nonlawful, and monks must be lawful, but in S&F they specifically mention that some of the most feared drunken masters were Barbarian/Monks.

 

[Zhure]

WotC kinda shot themselves in the foot with the alignment restriction. Barbarians must be nonlawful, and monks must be lawful, but in S&F they specifically mention that some of the most feared drunken masters were Barbarian/Monks.

Actually, it mentions a barbarian drunken master. The prerequisites are Evasion and some feats any Barbarian could pick up, so he might've had two levels of Rogue or could be an ex-monk. (The sticker here is the prerequisite of a UAB, but that just means he had to be an ex-monk or a Red Avenger (who also get UAB)).

Greg

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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)

Play a fighter and call him a barbarian, then.

 

[Zeddan]

Play a fighter and call him a barbarian, then.

I thought about that, but It kills the flavor behind the concept.

 

[Merlion]

And so does the silly alignment restriction. I'd say talk to your DM...remember EVERYTHING in the rules is changeable. Every campaign is different