Why EXP penalty for Multiclassing anyway?

[Dandu]

Zen monks may have been Chaotic, though that's hard to say because Zen is hard to grasp and describe.

 

[Hassassin]

I can totally picture a court-bard being lawful... loyal to his/her king/queen, to the laws of his country and living by the rules set by society. Can monks be chaotic? Why not? I think the monk thing is based on discipline they must have to adapt into their circles. But those two aren't the same thing.

Sure, I can picture those things as well, but having those rules be "optional" doesn't make any sense to me.

In case the rule exists the characters you describe don't actually have the Bard/Monk classes or are of the appropriate alignment despite some opposite tendencies. This is the RAW situation.

In case it doesn't exist the characters are free to be whatever they want. This is a perfectly acceptable house rule.

Similarly, XP-penalty might not be the perfect rule, but I totally understand it being a ("non-optional") part of the RAW. It's reasons, disadvantages and alternatives can be discussed, but whether is should be house-ruled is a personal decision of a gaming group.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It's 3e-exclusive, because multiclassing as we know it didn't exist in 2e. "Multiclassing" was a pseudo-gestalt limited to certain combinations for demihumans, and "dual-classing" was for humans only, required high stats, and had stiff penalties.

You can reconstruct the old multiclassing rules by using a combination of the Gestalt rules and Pathfinder's alternate XP tables. Even makes Level Adjustment more bearable.

 

[Duke Arioch]

This is the RAW situation.

Sorry I had been misunderstood. I know it is like that by RAW. I am only pointing out that not everything RAW makes sense IRL, hence should not be compared.
Anyway, Tiger got his answer above, and we keep rambling on off-topic

 

[jonesy]

I can totally picture a court-bard being lawful... loyal to his/her king/queen, to the laws of his country and living by the rules set by society. Can monks be chaotic? Why not? I think the monk thing is based on discipline they must have to adapt into their circles. But those two aren't the same thing.

Dragon #335 had a chaotic monk.

Beyond Monks by Chainmail Bikini Games also had one.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Sorry I had been misunderstood. I know it is like that by RAW. I am only pointing out that not everything RAW makes sense IRL, hence should not be compared.
Anyway, Tiger got his answer above, and we keep rambling on off-topic

I did indeed get my answer, and than gave you all permission to continue rambling!

 

[Hassassin]

I know it is like that by RAW. I am only pointing out that not everything RAW makes sense IRL, hence should not be compared.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you didn't.

In the post you replied to I argued against having optional rules, not for having alignment restrictions.

 

[Duke Arioch]

No need for apologies. I was a bit incomprehensive; a fact that happens a lot whilst I juggle my family, job and games, due to time boundaries and not enough sleep

 

[Tharkon]

I can totally picture a court-bard being lawful... loyal to his/her king/queen, to the laws of his country and living by the rules set by society. Can monks be chaotic? Why not? I think the monk thing is based on discipline they must have to adapt into their circles. But those two aren't the same thing.

Lawful isn't necessarily following THE law. It means you follow some code, guidelines, or strict ethical behavior. It is because of this that Monks and Paladins have to be Lawful. I could perfectly well see a Lawful character that does not entirely agree with a certain law. As long as he agrees with some ethical code. Like a Lawful Evil character might me a murderer even if murder is against THE law. Similary a chaotic character isn't constantly breaking the law. A court bard may very well be chaotic and might even get in trouble more than the average would, or be neutral and not specially caring for ethical behavior but not being non-ethical himself that much either. Btw, many court musicians may very well just be experts or rogues, the bard class describes a spellcaster.

I am only pointing out that not everything RAW makes sense IRL, hence should not be compared.

There are tons of things that don't match with RL, that's why it's a game.

 

[Celebrim]

Lawful isn't necessarily following THE law. It means you follow some code, guidelines, or strict ethical behavior.

This is true, but you have to make some additional qualifiers here. It's not merely following a code, or some guidelines, or having some strict adherence to what you believe is ethical. Chaotic people can have a code, hold themselves to a set of guidelines, and adhere strictly to some standard of behavior. What ultimately distinguishes Lawful from Chaotic is the question of who is ultimately responsible for the code. To qualify as Lawful, you have to be adhering to some externally reviewable code which is imposed by some outside force, and it must be the case that when you are in doubt how to behave you trust the code rather than your own consciousness and wisdom.

The most essential difference between Law and Chaos is over the question of in who rests the authority for establishing what is morally right - the collective or the individual. The Chaotic would advise that if in the estimation of your consciousness, the code was wrong, for you to follow the dictates of your own consciousness and do what you think is right. The Chaotic would also advise that you are ultimately responcible for deciding what the moral code of behavior should be, and hense it follows that even when a Chaotic has a strict code of behavior it is unreviewable because it exists only within the Chaotic and derives its authority from the individual. Other individuals can judge the Chaotic on the basis of thier own internal code, but they can never judge another person on the basis of his own unknowable code.

The Lawful rejects this and says that a moral code is useless if it applies only to an individual and may be overriden by the individuals feelings on the matter. The Lawful says that moral authority rests in some external source - a law giver, a diety, a body of ideas, the social collective - and is codified in to a reviewable body of laws whereby each individual can judge every other individual by the same standard. The Lawful differs from the Chaotic in being able to say, "This is the code I follow, it's an absolute standard, and you can know it, and know when I have departed from it and judge me by that." The Chaotic may be able to say, "I have a code I follow.", but will say, "And you will know it by how I behave, because it is a relative standard and though it applies to me it may not apply to everyone."