Alignment Change Proposal

[rimble]

I wouldn't hold this high on my wish list, but if they were to implement it they need to make sure you can only choose from valid alignments to switch to.

If you have any Paladin levels, you're stuck LG.

If you have any Barbarian or Bard levels you can't choose a Lawful alignment.

Switching alignments to create an 'illegal' multi-class Bard/Paladin, Barbarian/Paladin, etc, shouldn't be allowed.

[The_Old_Sage]

How can we adjust this and get our beloved older characters in line with re-rolls and new ones?

I will change the focus of my response to this post and pose the following question: Isn't alignment an integral part of what makes your DDO version of your favorite PnP character so dear to you? If so, why would you want to change it, if not for the purposes of simply using certain items.

Why wouldn't you just re-roll a new character? (It's the second time I have asked this question and it has not been answered.)

[Vinos]

There is no role-playing in DDO in the classical sense of the word. In pencil and paper, role-playing is an ACTUAL PART of the game, with rewards and punishments that occur based on the choices of actions players make. These are not only based on alignment, but on other things as well (for example, doing some jail time when you fail that skill roll picking a pocket). In DDO, role-playing is really just a conversation style that some players may choose to adopt. There are no consequences for actions other than death if the mobs/traps hit you for more hit points than you have. That is the (unfortunate) game mechanic that is (also unfortunately) also a part of many MMO's.

Some games, like Everquest (I know that one best), established a faction system whereby different groups would be hostile or not hostile based on whether you killed a lot of mobs or completed quests affecting that particular line of faction. However, it wasn't alignment-based. As a paladin I could commit the most atrocious acts but still maintain my class abilities.

If you have played Neverwinter Nights (1 or 2) there is an alignment system which can change your alignment based on your actions. However, I would imagine this would be very difficult to do in an MMO, especially if the actions of party members could impact on your alignment.

I can just imagine the thread on these forums should someone lose their paladin status because they killed something they should not have or broke into a room they should have stayed out of.

You do know that I am agreeing with your posts right? I know that roleplaying is just conversation in DDO.

[Alazure]

I agree with Vinos, Old Sage; you try to tell me what the point of my point was. I; if anyone would know what I'm trying to get across. Sorry if you take my "example" as the meaning of my post. They were just examples. The fact you try to play the game of "you said this, then you must stick to it and only it" even if the OP states otherwise is kind of amusing. I have have conveyed my thoughts in different ways, yet you presumptiously decide to tell me what I mean, based on my example. I apologize if my point got lost because of my example. This was not meant as an argument. If anyone has positives things to add, it would be most welcomed.

[Shade]

Yea they should have some RP-type options for alignment shift.

I think NPC quest conversations would be best spot. Have multiple options once you complete it like in NWN

"You sent me on a suicide mission! I deseve a better reward"
= +1 loot table, -1 alignment from good (Paladins cant select this)
"All in a days work"
=regular loot table, no alignment shift
"Im glad to help, I need no reward"
=Get a reward anyways, but -1 loot table, +1 towards good

This should only apply the first time you complete the quest. After that you only get the neutral choice.

Need say 20 points to shift alignment.

Tho imo in the mean time until such a complex system is coded, a quick fix would be to add a raise dead item that is neutral only, or gives a negative lvl to good. That stupid ring is the one thing that imbalances the alignments.

[The_Old_Sage]

I agree with Vinos, Old Sage; you try to tell me what the point of my point was. I; if anyone would know what I'm trying to get across. Sorry if you take my "example" as the meaning of my post. They were just examples. The fact you try to play the game of "you said this, then you must stick to it and only it" even if the OP states otherwise is kind of amusing. I have have conveyed my thoughts in different ways, yet you presumptiously decide to tell me what I mean, based on my example. I apologize if my point got lost because of my example. This was not meant as an argument. If anyone has positives things to add, it would be most welcomed.

That is the exact opposite of what I am doing. My first response was to the original post. By the way, the word "example" is not found there. Many of my other posts have been to dispute that OP's assertion that I should have known that he was just citing examples. I have at no times stated that he did not mean more than that, in fact I have no clue what more he meant other than what he originally posted, until he subsequently posted more information.

For some reason, the OP thinks I should have known he was just using it as an example. I have also disputed his suggestion even accepting the fact that it may have nothing to do with the original reason he stated. Oddly enough, none of his responses, or yours for that matter, seem to have moved beyond trying to defend that the reasons justifying the need for alignment change are beyond the need to use particular items. My discussion has moved beyond that, and you are welcome to join me.

[Vinos]

That is the exact opposite of what I am doing. My first response was to the original post. By the way, the word "example" is not found there. Many of my other posts have been to dispute that OP's assertion that I should have known that he was just citing examples. I have at no times stated that he did not mean more than that, in fact I have no clue what more he meant other than what he originally posted, until he subsequently posted more information.

For some reason, the OP thinks I should have known he was just using it as an example. I have also disputed his suggestion even accepting the fact that it may have nothing to do with the original reason he stated. Oddly enough, none of his responses, or yours for that matter, seem to have moved beyond trying to defend that the reasons justifying the need for alignment change are beyond the need to use particular items. My discussion has moved beyond that, and you are welcome to join me.

We're all agreeing with you yet you're still at it lol.

[The_Old_Sage]

Yea they should have some RP-type options for alignment shift.

I think NPC quest conversations would be best spot. Have multiple options once you complete it like in NWN

"You sent me on a suicide mission! I deseve a better reward"
= +1 loot table, -1 alignment from good (Paladins cant select this)
"All in a days work"
=regular loot table, no alignment shift
"Im glad to help, I need no reward"
=Get a reward anyways, but -1 loot table, +1 towards good

This should only apply the first time you complete the quest. After that you only get the neutral choice.

Need say 20 points to shift alignment.

Tho imo in the mean time until such a complex system is coded, a quick fix would be to add a raise dead item that is neutral only, or gives a negative lvl to good. That stupid ring is the one thing that imbalances the alignments.

Wow, that's a really interesting suggestion, especially if tied to loot tables. You add possible loss of class-status (paladin/ranger/barbarian/bard, etc) as a result of your alignment and this could really create some interesting game-play.

The economy kind of trumps this, however, since better items can always be traded for. It still is an interesting idea though.

[The_Old_Sage]

We're all agreeing with you yet you're still at it lol.

Sorry, I just don't take kindly to people accusing me of doing something I am not doing. Case in point:

I agree with Vinos, Old Sage; you try to tell me what the point of my point was. I; if anyone would know what I'm trying to get across. Sorry if you take my "example" as the meaning of my post. They were just examples. The fact you try to play the game of "you said this, then you must stick to it and only it" even if the OP states otherwise is kind of amusing. I have have conveyed my thoughts in different ways, yet you presumptiously decide to tell me what I mean, based on my example. I apologize if my point got lost because of my example. This was not meant as an argument. If anyone has positives things to add, it would be most welcomed.

This is hardly a warm-fuzzy, and it is offensive, because it is actually a lie and exactly NOT what I am doing. Aluzare keeps saying that I was forcing him to stick to his OP but I am only disputing his assertion that it was obvious that his OP meant more than the actual words that were typed there.

[Alazure]

You are by trying to state what my point is.{Excuse me? It's the premise of your original post!!!}
My aplogies if I don't use your way of wording things. You're saying you've moved beyond what I am saying, then start a new post with your ideas. Why do you insist on critizing mine. If you have ideas beyond the scope of what I'm talking about, move on. You we're the first to question my motives for alignment change. your own words betray you; "I am ony disputing" !!! Can't you add without disputing. I never said it was more than the actual words, I said you took an example and made it the point,{when ever I see you posting, I'll make sure I point this out to you when making an example}; my words stand; the only obvious if that you needed further clarifications of my point.

P.S. I did answer you on the reroll question. I highlighted in orange so you could find it easier

[SneakThief]

Excuse me? It's the premise of your original post!!!

Actually he never said anything about a lawful character (Pally) using a chaotic weapon, or a character that can use all items (cake and eat it too).

Hard to believe that this is about anything other than using items that your current build cannot use.

Well, there is that pesky RP part of MMORPG. And then there is being able to make an informed decision, or at least evolve as the game evolves.

That is an incorrect assertion. Alignment change is an integral part of D&D, but mostly as a result of "INVOLUNTARY" alignment change due to the actions of a player contrary to his/her chosen alignment. The extreme example being, of course, when a paladin commits an evil act and irrevocably loses his/her paladinhood. Voluntary alignment change does not come about as easily. What you are suggesting is a process by which a character, who finally comes across the suit of +5 Mithral Full Plate of Stability ends up deciding to change his/her alignment to make the most of it.

Ummm ... you have a strange definition of involuntary. Every alignment change a character might see(with the exception of a cursed item) is determined by what the player decides to do. I have purposefully led my characters down paths to change thier alignment before because thats the story I wanted to write.

That's incorrect. They have been around since release. Are you telling me that you have only played one character since the time of making your first toon in this game? Would you not take the opportunity to make a new character that has the requisite alignment to use the items you want?

First, I know plenty people that play one character and have never rerolled them. Second, Pure good, True Law/Choas were NOT out at release. Anarchic was, but you can still wield that if you are lawful (taking a negative level).

[The_Old_Sage]

Ummm ... you have a strange definition of involuntary. Every alignment change a character might see(with the exception of a cursed item) is determined by what the player decides to do. I have purposefully led my characters down paths to change thier alignment before because thats the story I wanted to write.

That's exactly why I typed involuntary in quotation marks because it never really is involuntary, especially in the example you cite. However, it isn't voluntary in that you don't just go to Fred the Mind Flayer and ask him to change you from Lawful Good to True Neutral.

[The_Old_Sage]

Actually he never said anything about a lawful character (Pally) using a chaotic weapon, or a character that can use all items (cake and eat it too).

Actually it was the rez ring that was the original reference, as I correctly cited earlier on. I was stating that it was the premise of his post, not the exact words of his post, that he is frustrated that his non-good character can't use the rez ring. A paladin using a chaotic weapon would be another example of this same premise.

[The_Old_Sage]

First, I know plenty people that play one character and have never rerolled them. Second, Pure good, True Law/Choas were NOT out at release. Anarchic was, but you can still wield that if you are lawful (taking a negative level).

Alignment-restricted items have been around since release. Stability armor just to name one example.

Personally I have 3 main characters that were built and not re-rolled and 2 that were re-rolled. Oddly enough I kept my "Batman build" in spite of the repeated bludgeonings with the "nerf bat" (ok... evasion wasn't really a nerf.. another thread altogether). I would make a helluva lotta sense to re-roll my human wizard and make him a drow but I kept him, warts and all, BECAUSE he is based on a PnP favorite of nearly 30 years ago.

Lots of stuff has changed since release. It's simply adapt or re-roll when these changes are made. That's what I have been told when questioning or protesting some of these changes.

[SneakThief]

Multi-quote FTW!

Actually it was the rez ring that was the original reference, as I correctly cited earlier on. I was stating that it was the premise of his post, not the exact words of his post, that he is frustrated that his non-good character can't use the rez ring. A paladin using a chaotic weapon would be another example of this same premise.

What I was saying is I think you got it backwards. He doesnt sound frustrated that his non-good character cant use the Rez ring, but rather that he cant change to something good so that he can (adapt as the game changes). There is no reason that a character should not be able to change as the world changes around them.

Alignment-restricted items have been around since release. Stability armor just to name one example.

Yes, but the items you are refering to that have been around since release are not RESTRICTED. Stability can be equipped by anyone, though you dont get full benefit unless you are TN. Anarchic/Axiomatic can also be equipped by anyone, though with a negative level if you are the opposing alignment. The alignment RESTRICTED items were added later.

Lots of stuff has changed since release. It's simply adapt or re-roll when these changes are made. That's what I have been told when questioning or protesting some of these changes.

Yes ... but his point and THE point is there is no way to ADAPT in regards to aligment, so the game changes and gives players no way to change with it. And more pointedly, there IS a way to adapt alignment in D&D.

[skraus1]

Alignment-restricted items have been around since release. Stability armor just to name one example.

About the only true alignment restricted items at release were chaos gaurds and those chaotic bracer of deflection from delera's. Holy, Unholy, Anachic, Axiomatic and stability were out at release as well, but were not alignment restricted really, with negative levels on opposing alignments and no benefit of stability if not true neutral. At release the "best" alignment as far as weapons went was true neutral and lawful neutral/good for chaos gaurds + holy weapons.

The "pure" mods came months after.

There is no reason characters should NOT be able to change alignment using some mechanic as long as alignment restrictions of classes are respected. Of course, people will oppose this, just like they opposed respecing of feats and changing spells out for sponaneous classes.

[Alazure]

Thank you SneakThief.

I can go adventure knowing my point wasn't lost.
"What I was saying is I think you got it backwards. He doesnt sound frustrated that his non-good character cant use the Rez ring, but rather that he cant change to something good so that he can (adapt as the game changes). There is no reason that a character should not be able to change as the world changes around them."
"Yes ... but his point and THE point is there is no way to ADAPT in regards to aligment, so the game changes and gives players no way to change with it. And more pointedly, there IS a way to adapt alignment in D&D."

I will word my opinions more carefully from now on. My intent was to promote ideas and maybe catch a Dev's eye. Never thought I would have to defend my choice of words.

Happy Questing All

[The_Old_Sage]

I will word my opinions more carefully from now on. My intent was to promote ideas and maybe catch a Dev's eye. Never thought I would have to defend my choice of words.

Happy Questing All

Let's for one minute buy into your idea. A character, whether by shard, or favor, or quest, is able to change their alignment, as long as it is not "illegal" (chaotic neutral paladins not allowed, in other words). I get your drift, I think I got your drift from the first post.

Does this mean we should also be asking for race changes because of changes they made to the game (such as the change to Human Versatility) or change of base class because of those changes (i.e. bard changes, etc.)?

I think you may start to understand, now, my resistance to such changes. It is a little more than just asking for a feat respec, or a skill respec. It is basically asking to selectively re-roll your character without having to forfeit any experience or bound items on that character. You yourself are not suggesting these things, but they are the logical extension of the idea you are promoting.

Oh, and by the way, please don't expect me to defend or apologize for disagreeing with you. You have every right to post whatever idea you want on these forums, I have every right to disagree with the idea, or the words you use to express that idea.

[skraus1]

Does this mean we should also be asking for race changes because of changes they made to the game (such as the change to Human Versatility) or change of base class because of those changes (i.e. bard changes, etc.)?

I think you may start to understand, now, my resistance to such changes. It is a little more than just asking for a feat respec, or a skill respec. It is basically asking to selectively re-roll your character without having to forfeit any experience or bound items on that character. You yourself are not suggesting these things, but they are the logical extension of the idea you are promoting.

Oh, and by the way, please don't expect me to defend or apologize for disagreeing with you. You have every right to post whatever idea you want on these forums, I have every right to disagree with the idea, or the words you use to express that idea.

Yes, it's called the "slippery slope fallacy." I.e., that once something has been done, it will cause a much greater chain of events. We got into Vietnam and stayed in to prevent communism from taking over all of SE asia for example.

So we ALL need to hold the line and prevent alignment changes, which are in themselves fairly banal, in order to keep other changes from being allowed in the future.

[The_Old_Sage]

Yes, it's called the "slippery slope fallacy." I.e., that once something has been done, it will cause a much greater chain of events. We got into Vietnam and stayed in to prevent communism from taking over all of SE asia for example.

So we ALL need to hold the line and prevent alignment changes, which are in themselves fairly banal, in order to keep other changes from being allowed in the future.

Actually the reasoning should be as follows:

1. It is a change that cannot be accessed by all classes equally.
2. Since alignment is synonymous with some classes, to make it accessible to all classes you need to also allow classes to change.
3. There is a lesser link (although a significant one) between class and race, it would follow that race changes would also need to be considered.

Edit note: Of course, classes are inexorably linked to skills and feats, which would also need to be respec'd given that alignment would be allowed to change.

I am not "dead set" against alignment changes. I do like the idea of in-game actions leading to consequences that could change alignment and could even have the result of irrevocably (or without significant penance) result in loss of class advancement for paladins, etc. Not sure if that would ever see the light of day, however.