Alignment Change Proposal

[The_Old_Sage]

There arer 3 ways in which alignment changes could be implemented.

1) Turbine can implement alignment changes without class changes by restricting alignments to those required by previous classes

Or

2) Turbine can turn off class features to represent the fallen palidins, barbarians and bards. A pally would just become a really poor fighter with bad saves, no spells and no auras. And barbarians would be really poor fighters with a low ac, because of their lost rage. This would fully and completely capture 3.5 core rules. However, these fallen classes would suck so much that no one would want to play them, because they don't gain the fighter enhancements or feats because they're still paladins, bards and barbarians. In PnP these classes were to stimulate roleplay by being ineffective.

OR

3) As Old Sage suggests, for fairness reasons, alignment changes make full class respecs necessary. This would not be in lines with core 3.0 or 3.5 DnD but is allowable under optional rules in the PHBII.

In no way, shape, or form is option 3 the logical result of alignment changes in core 3.5 rules. There are arguements, which Old Sage has given, for option 3, but it is not the inevitable conclusion of alignment changes.

In fact options 1 or 2 are much closer to the standard rules, with option 1 being the most player friendly and least coding intensive way of doing this.

I also don't agree with Old Sage's belief that option 2 and 3 are basically the same thing. Option 2 turns off class abilities, and option 3 changes classes. These are VERY different things. I would support option 2 only because some people might like to roleplay, although option 1 is easier and I think will be more fun for people with less knowledge of game mechanics....I can already see posts about how fallen pallies suck.

Old sage and I both agree that option 3 is highy unlikely to occur. Old Sage argues that because of this alignment changes shouldn't be allowed, which is a position I don't agree with in any shape or form because I don't agree with his fairness arguements.

I would happily support either option 1 or option 2, with the understanding that fallen bards, barbarians, and paladins should royally suck. I think option 1 would be more fun and easy to understand because a lot of people will be upset that their "uber" batman build suddenly sucks when they are no longer lawful good.

I would happily support option 1 or option 2, although I believe that option 2 is closer to the ruleset, as others, including Skraus1, have already stated.

People keep misinterpreting my position however.

From a role-playing perspective, alignment change could be implemented. My point, however, is that no matter how you attempt to justify it, alignment change in the context of DDO is a respecification. Alignment is irrelevant in DDO from a role-playing perspective, however it is significant from a gameplay perspective, just as class is significant (the most significant).

I was flamed badly for initially assuming that the desire for alignment change was in order to use certain alignment-restricted items such as the Ring of the Ancestors, this was disputed by somehow twisting my words to suggest that I meant that the OP wanted paladins to be able to use chaotic weapons, which lead to others alleging that I wanted to create lawful barbarians and chaotic paladins.

None of these statements were actually made by me, but when has truth ever been an adequate defense on these forums.

I will reiterate my point (my only point) that alignment change, as suggested in option 1 and even option 2 above, is in fact a respecification.

In option 1 above, available to only some classes. Option 2 makes it available to all classes, but of course with the necessary consequences in the case where a paladin would lose abilities, etc. The consequences, in my opinion, would not be welcome in the case of some players, but I think, at least, if makes alignment change available to everyone, and frankly, if someone doesn't want to change, they don't have to.

We all seem to agree that option 3 is a problem, but here is my point (and this has always been my point from the beginning).

DISCLAIMER: The following argument in no way means I am in favor of a full respecification. It is simply an attempt to show why I am uncomfortable with ALL of the alignment change options presented.

1. The proponents of alignment change want to allow players to respecify their alignment in order to access items that did not exist previously or changed after the time many characters were created.
2. The game already allows feat respecs because some of them have changed since the game began.
3. The game already allows enhancements to respec'd because of the overhaul of the enhancement system.

Haven't class abilities, race abilities and skills also changed in DDO since release? It seems to me that if everyone accepts that alignment should change because of changes in the game since release, doesn't this present an even STRONGER argument that race, class and skills should be able to be respecified?

It is not a slippery slope or a straw man argument. It is using the EXACT same rationale for alignment change to support full respec.

Although my world will not end if alignments are allowed to change, even with option 1 (I prefer option 2 but I'm a purist). I cannot understand how those who argue in favor of alignment change can at the same time argue against full respec.

[Alazure]

Dungeons & Dragons creator Gary Gygax credits the inspiration for the alignment system to the fantasy stories of Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock. In Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, Law and Chaos are warring cosmic principles that command the allegiance of the knights of Charlemagne and the spirits of Faerie respectively. Moorcock extensively developed the concept of a cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos in his fantasy stories and novels of the 1960s (such as the Elric and Hawkmoon story cycles), envisioning a multiverse of worlds as the battlefield for principles embodied in godlike beings. The game's alignment system initially featured only Law, Neutrality and Chaos, with Law generally equating to Good and heroism, and Chaos implying anarchy and Evil; however, the good/evil parallels were not strongly defined. Initially, dwarves were Lawful and elves Chaotic, while humans could be of any of the three alignments.

While the game had always allowed the creation of creatures who were intrinsically good or evil, it wasn't until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) that the concept was explicitly introduced into the alignment system. Characters and creatures could now be Lawful at the same time as being Evil (such as a tyrant), or Chaotic but Good (such as Robin Hood). Nine alignment combinations were possible in all, referred to with the Law/Chaos component first and the Good/Evil component last: for example, Lawful Good or Neutral Evil (abbreviated to LG and NE, respectively). A character or creature considered neutral on both axes is referred to as True Neutral or simply Neutral. This system is still used by the most recent edition of the D&D game.

Under the AD&D rules, a player character's alignment was strongly enforced. For example, under 2nd Edition AD&D rules, a character who performed too many actions outside of his alignment could be forced to change alignment. In third edition D&D this restriction is removed and players are technically allowed to change alignment freely.

As of the most recent version of the Dungeons & Dragons game, alignment's most significant effect is restricting what character classes a person may take - for example, a Lawful person cannot become a bard or a barbarian, a druid must be Neutral in at least one aspect, and under the standard rules only Lawful Good characters can become a paladin. Otherwise alignment change is permitted.

A rule removed from recent editions of the game was alignment languages, wherein a person of Lawful alignment could speak a language called Lawful, allowing him to communicate discreetly with others of his alignment. Since a person could change alignment, this rule made little sense and was eventually removed.

[lostinjapan]

it makes no sense to me yet, why we can't change our surname along with our firstnames, and why we can't change our alignment in ANY way, shape or form.

I dont think it should be a premium service, it should be a in-game shard switch, like feats. I too, made my alignment with PnP game knowledge, not knowing I would regret being TN.

QFT (on both issues)

/agree