Alignment Change Proposal

[dameron]

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.

Alignment change is trivial in PnP.

From the "Atonement" spell:

Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

Up to the player. Drastically, suddenly, definitively via a 5th level spell.

Maybe put a timer on it like swapping spells, but it needs to be in the game, ideally with the introduction of evil alignments and a broadening of the story arc.

[The_Old_Sage]

Alignment change is trivial in PnP.

I am not sure it's trivial, but perhaps I am not as well versed on 3.5 edition rules like I am on prior editions. Do evil ethos violations still irrevocablys strip paladins of their paladinhood, making them forever afterwards fighters?

From the "Atonement" spell:

Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

Up to the player. Drastically, suddenly, definitively via a 5th level spell.

Maybe put a timer on it like swapping spells, but it needs to be in the game, ideally with the introduction of evil alignments and a broadening of the story arc.

It is certainly plausible, and I definitely agree with respect to the introduction of evil alignments.

[Symar-FangofLloth]

I am not sure it's trivial, but perhaps I am not as well versed on 3.5 edition rules like I am on prior editions. Do evil ethos violations still irrevocablys strip paladins of their paladinhood, making them forever afterwards fighters?

Worse than fighters, because they don't get the bonus feats fighters have. But, a paladin can repent and turn back to the path of good, though it requires the aforementioned Atonement spell to restore his powers.


Anywho, alignment changes could be allowed if they follow this rule: You cannot change to an alignment that would prevent advancement in one of your current classes.
The other possibility is to code in so that:

• A barbarian who turns lawful loses rage.
• A paladin who turns non-lawful-good loses ALL abilities except BAB,HD,skills,feats,saves.
• Druids, when added, lose ALL abilities except HD,BAB,skills,feats,saves when they turn to LG/CG/LE/CE.

The non-progression of classes if you are the wrong alignment is already in the game. But I'd prefer the first option, and make it have a very long timer- like once a month or something.

[LOUDRampart]

In PnP you can change alignment. You work out the details with the DM to be sure you conform to the new alignment.

In DDO you cannot change alignment (at least for now). If you want a character with a different alignment you must reroll. (Which cracks me up that some people think this is a good solution.)

[Uska]

Why!? It is normal for a character in DnD to change alignments, why pay for something that should be part of the game?

Just have it like the feat/enhancement/spell respec.

NO its not normal for a dnd character to change alignemnts without their being some kind of backlash.

[dameron]

NO its not normal for a dnd character to change alignemnts without their being some kind of backlash.

Yes, it is.

You guys should really try to remember to add "in my campaign" to most of your posts, seriously.

[dameron]

I am not sure it's trivial, but perhaps I am not as well versed on 3.5 edition rules like I am on prior editions.

They specifically put that aspect of the spell in so that players can have a:

" a believable way... to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively."

That means alignment change is trivial. It means the characters don't have to actually have an RP believable reason for changing their alignment. They can change their alignments because they want to, and the spell provides cover, a "believable way" for them to change it.

If they're dumb enough to lose class abilities then so be it.

The funny thing is, "Atonement" would also allow a paladin to regain his paladinhood just as easily as he'd lost it.

"A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. "

Again, alignment change in 3.5 PnP is trivial. Very trivial for most classes.

[Uska]

Yes, it is.

You guys should really try to remember to add "in my campaign" to most of your posts, seriously.

NO its not of course I am really talking about 2nd edition and earlier and by the rules

[Uska]

They specifically put that aspect of the spell in so that players can have a:

" a believable way... to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively."

That means alignment change is trivial. It means the characters don't have to actually have an RP believable reason for changing their alignment. They can change their alignments because they want to, and the spell provides cover, a "believable way" for them to change it.

If they're dumb enough to lose class abilities then so be it.

The funny thing is, "Atonement" would also allow a paladin to regain his paladinhood just as easily as he'd lost it.

"A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. "

Again, alignment change in 3.5 PnP is trivial. Very trivial for most classes.

Most the gms I have know over the past 30 years would have any cleric or paladin struck down by their diety for changing alignment no need for atonement unless it was against their will or they were tricked then maybe there had been a chance and in earlier editons you lost a level at the very least for changing alignments. Of course from the looks of 4th ed alignment looks like its going to mean even less now it seems to be every edtion it becomes less of a factor.

[Tanka]

NO its not of course I am really talking about 2nd edition and earlier and by the rules

DDO is based on 3.5. Please stop using archaic rules to justify your statements. No matter how many times you say "in my campaign", it will not suddenly mean that DDO should conform to an AD&D campaign on which its rules are not even based.

[wundernewb]

but voluntary alignment change is not the way to go. Having a wider range of item options (and eliminating useless combinations, like the +2 longsword of greater ooze bane) for the undeserved alignments is the way to go.

I certainly like that idea better than alignment changing.

[skraus1]

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.

So you are supporting a slippery slope fallacy by the straw person fallacy? I.e., using the weakest version of the opposing arguement, allowing any class to change to any alignments, to drive your own arguements against alignment changes.

Few people are wanting neutral paladins and lawful bards and barbarians. This would dramatic implications on the game, such as allowing barb/bard/pally builds. This is not allowed in D&D 3.5 without dramatic effects such as a paladin losing all benefits of the class except skills, HD and BAB. And if you don't think it would have dramatic implications, think about what a Bard10/Pally2/Rogue 2 could do....it would be a scary displaced machine of death and disabling.

The vast majority of people wanting aligngment changes are wanting to change their N fighters to NG for example. I.e., changing alignments allowed by classes they already posses.

No one has ever explained how allowing alignment changes within the alignments allowed by classes previous gained will inevitably lead to class and race respecs.

Who cares whether paladins can't make use of this new feature or that bards won't be able to be lawful? They knew that when they got the class and had to prepare for that from level 1. So saying that only full alignment changes or class changes are possible for reasons of fairness to pallys, bards and barbarian builds is simply a silly way to throw out all alignment changes altogether.

[hkthui]

If a player's motive for alignment change is to use uber alignment restricted items, I don't think that any sensible DM should approve the change. It really doesn't matter whether it is ADnD 2nd edition, DnD 3.0 / 3.5, or DDO.

[Falco_Easts]

I wanna respec my Dwarven Fighter's race because I looted a really good axe that is race restricted Warforged only. Sound stupid? No different then changing alignment to be able to use a weapon/item. You don't like your alignment, reroll, invest in UMD or just get over it. No need for a respec because people don't like the choice they made.

[xberto]

It seems like alot of people want to have thier cake and eat it too.

Sorry for the off-topic comment but I never did understand that phrase. Is it wrong to want to eat the cake if you have it? I must be dense because I don't get it.

[Uska]

DDO is based on 3.5. Please stop using archaic rules to justify your statements. No matter how many times you say "in my campaign", it will not suddenly mean that DDO should conform to an AD&D campaign on which its rules are not even based.

Just using what I was most familar with and thought alignment rules were the same and yes they are based on ad&d rules as 3.0-3.5 are based upon them

[The_Old_Sage]

So you are supporting a slippery slope fallacy by the straw person fallacy? I.e., using the weakest version of the opposing arguement, allowing any class to change to any alignments, to drive your own arguements against alignment changes.

Few people are wanting neutral paladins and lawful bards and barbarians.

I am saying the exact opposite. Please read carefully.

Paladins (the most extreme example) CANNOT change alignment from lawful good. So are YOU suggesting that the game allow some classes to change alignment to adapt to changes in the game while other classes (paladins, barbarians) are not able to do so because of the initial choice of class? Isn't that creating exactly the sort of situation that you are claiming to fix by allowing alignment changes?

What I am saying is that in order to avoid creating the same sort of situation by allowing alignment changes to some classes and not others, the only way to ensure that you don't create this situation is by allowing class changes as well.

That is all I am saying. I am not denying that changes in the game have not come with the ability to retroactively adapt to these changes. Alignment change, however, is just one particular facet of addressing this concern and cannot be allowed in isolation without doing exactly what it claims to fix. Skills, class, and race respecification cannot be overlooked either if you accept the initial premise of the OP that existing characters should be allowed to change alignment to keep pace with changes made in the game since release.

[Tanka]

Just using what I was most familar with and thought alignment rules were the same and yes they are based on ad&d rules as 3.0-3.5 are based upon them

Having a basis in something does not suddenly mean that your experiences mean a thing in regards to a totally different system.

[skraus1]

I am saying the exact opposite. Please read carefully.

Paladins (the most extreme example) CANNOT change alignment from lawful good. So are YOU suggesting that the game allow some classes to change alignment to adapt to changes in the game while other classes (paladins, barbarians) are not able to do so because of the initial choice of class? Isn't that creating exactly the sort of situation that you are claiming to fix by allowing alignment changes?

What I am saying is that in order to avoid creating the same sort of situation by allowing alignment changes to some classes and not others, the only way to ensure that you don't create this situation is by allowing class changes as well.

That is all I am saying. I am not denying that changes in the game have not come with the ability to retroactively adapt to these changes. Alignment change, however, is just one particular facet of addressing this concern and cannot be allowed in isolation without doing exactly what it claims to fix. Skills, class, and race respecification cannot be overlooked either if you accept the initial premise of the OP that existing characters should be allowed to change alignment to keep pace with changes made in the game since release.

I am saying that it would be silly to NOT discriminate against pallys, bards and barbarians in this regard. This is COMPLETELY in lines with D&D 3.5. People know they must be certain alignments with these classes, with the only class completely unable to change alignments being paladins. Bards and barbarians can change to CN, N, NG, and CG. Paladins much stay LG.

I do not want to see Paladin/bard/barbarian monstrousities. They would change the power balance in the game. I am perfectly fine being unegalitarian in that regard, as it is COMPLETELY in lines with D&D 3.5, and 3.0 before it I believe.

Old sage, saying that logically to support alignment changes leads to class changes is simply false. In traditional 3.0 and 3.5 D&D , there are no changing of classes, only a losing of class features when a character leaves the required alignments of their class.

I personally do not like the fact that my necromancer, with lots of raid loot, is LG because I hit the back arrow during creation 1 week after launch.

Saying that asking for alignment changes = neutral paladins is creating a straw person argument Old Sage, because this will NEVER happen. It strays far from PnP and creates a new power spectrum....and simply is non-sensical to say that a paragon of good and virtue doesn't need to be good.

Because I am a strong believer that paragons of good and virtue must be good and virtuous, I believe previously held classes must limit allowed alignment changes.

Could you please explain again why you believe that paragons of good and virtue need not be good or virtuous?

Of course, if class changes were allowed as well, these paladin could become neutral fighter, and neutral fighter could become paladins. However, I doubt that class changes will ever be implimented as they eliminate one reason people have to make a new character, which encourages them to play longer and add to Turbine's coffers. Also, class changes would entail a much more elaborate coding system than alignment changes, so they're that much more unlikely. Class changes also violate PnP traditions, although there are optional rules for class changes in the PHBII. In short, these aren't likely to happen, but alignment changes are small enough that they might happen in the near future. I've also noticed about 1 of these threads every month or two for some time now....so this appears to be a recurrent desire

[The_Old_Sage]

I am saying that it would be silly to NOT discriminate against pallys, bards and barbarians in this regard. This is COMPLETELY in lines with D&D 3.5. People know they must be certain alignments with these classes, with the only class completely unable to change alignments being paladins. Bards and barbarians can change to CN, N, NG, and CG. Paladins much stay LG.

I do not want to see Paladin/bard/barbarian monstrousities. They would change the power balance in the game. I am perfectly fine being unegalitarian in that regard, as it is COMPLETELY in lines with D&D 3.5, and 3.0 before it I believe.

I agree, it was never anything I considered.

Old sage, saying that logically to support alignment changes leads to class changes is simply false. In traditional 3.0 and 3.5 D&D , there are no changing of classes, only a losing of class features when a character leaves the required alignments of their class.

Agreed, which is why alignment change should not be allowed because it must be accompanied by class changes (paladins changing their alignment are no longer paladins, and therefore must change their class to fighter losing their paladin abilities, etc.).

I personally do not like the fact that my necromancer, with lots of raid loot, is LG because I hit the back arrow during creation 1 week after launch.

Odd. Did that a couple of times with certain builds. I just deleted and re-rolled a few levels in. Although I understand that, in some cases, it wasn't until really much MUCH later than many folks realized that the alignment chosen was a problem. I accept that as the rationale for the request for alignment change.

Saying that asking for alignment changes = neutral paladins is creating a straw person argument Old Sage, because this will NEVER happen. It strays far from PnP and creates a new power spectrum....and simply is non-sensical to say that a paragon of good and virtue doesn't need to be good.

Could you please quote the post where I, in any way, shape or form, suggest that paladins should be allowed to change alignment and still keep their paladin abilities? I actually still think they should adhere to the rules limiting paladins to 10 magic items, that's how old school I am. So this straw man statement is simply getting a match put to it. I actually stated that because paladins CANNOT change alignment without losing class abilities, and there is no mechanic to do so, the "simple" alignment change argument espoused in the orginal post cannot be implemented.

Because I am a strong believer that paragons of good and virtue must be good and virtuous, I believe previously held classes must limit allowed alignment changes.

Could you please explain again why you believe that paragons of good and virtue need not be good or virtuous?

Could you please explain to me why you believe that the moon is made of green cheese? I NEVER SAID THAT PALADINS SHOULD CHANGE ALIGNMENT AND KEEP THEIR PALADIN ABILITIES. PLEASE STOP CLAIMING THAT I SAID THIS!!!! (Sheesh... hehe...)

Of course, if class changes were allowed as well, these paladin could become neutral fighter, and neutral fighter could become paladins. However, I doubt that class changes will ever be implimented as they eliminate one reason people have to make a new character, which encourages them to play longer and add to Turbine's coffers. Also, class changes would entail a much more elaborate coding system than alignment changes, so they're that much more unlikely. Class changes also violate PnP traditions, although there are optional rules for class changes in the PHBII. In short, these aren't likely to happen, but alignment changes are small enough that they might happen in the near future. I've also noticed about 1 of these threads every month or two for some time now....so this appears to be a recurrent desire

Thank you for very eloquently making my point. In this paragraph you have perfectly summarized why alignment change should not (and will not happen). It's great that you finally saw my point.