Alignment Change Proposal

[Alazure]

Old Sage
It seems that you want to have the last word, as you belief you are above D&D rules as stated in your last entry; Quote: "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."

Skraus1 has made many valid points and has refuted your arguments (much better than I ever could) but you insist on having the final word. (If my assumpion is correct, you'll even reply to this, so you can still have the final word) For all your well written arguments, your biggest flaw IMO is you belief yourself to be above the rule set (stated as you would say "from your own words"). Lucky for us Gary Gygax didn't come to you when he decided to put together this great concept for us. Bottom line is the rule set says otherwise and one day we might see some form of alignment shift mechanism.

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

Many of us, made earlier characters without knowing the ramifications of aligment in this game. We picked aligment based on role playing and because our PnP characters had such a such alignment. ie; Who knew weapons would be so alignment specific? Who knew a Rez ring couldn't be used by non-good "even" if you have great UMD? As the game changes; we should be allowed to adapt to it, within the confines of D&D rules. Alignment changes and shift are definitely within the rules and are there for a reason. Those that are against any form of alignment change or shift, can ask themselves, why they can acccept D&D rules for some things and abitrarily decide they don't want others.

How can we adjust this and get our beloved older characters in line with re-rolls and new ones? I propose two possible ways:

1) Turbine can use the paid services ($9.95) for an alignment change. In this case, since we're paying, there should be no limit as to the change. (not my first choice, but mentioned here, as an option, since Turbine has taken this route for some things already)

2) Alignment could be changed by use of a dragon shard, plat. , and an appropriate quest. The shift could only be one over. (lawful neutral to either lawgood or true neutral, but not chaotic good; drastic changes would require multiple tries with appropriate waits times, plat, and quest) This, is by far, my preference, as it would stick closer to rolepalying and similar to what paladins need to do to regain theirs.

well, first they would have to make it so that if you get rid of your special class abilities when you change alignments. Like any none lawful good pallys shouldnt beable to use their auras, and loose all their spally abilities, any lawful bards should be unable to gain new levels in bards, nor gain any new songs, lawful barbs should be unable to rage... ect. they would have to code all that in before adding a system like this.


Only way i see an alignment change implemented is an in game thing for 'if' certain prestige classes like blackguard come out, and IF they add in the fallen paladin stuff, thus there should be an in game way for paladins to become blackguards liek that, unless of course its an autpomatic allignment change if a pally becomes a blackguard.

[Alazure]

Agreed Tenkari,

If you read further ino the post, Skraus1 explained this very well. No one is suggesting we change the rule set. Quite the opposite; the rules allow for a neutral good fighter to shift toward lawful good through deeds or spells. The ability to adapt "within" the rule set, is the main consideration. All the examples you stated would be correct. Certain shifts would have consequences and according to the rules it should.

[The_Old_Sage]

Old Sage
It seems that you want to have the last word, as you belief you are above D&D rules as stated in your last entry; Quote: "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."

Not sure how the section you quoted is being interpreted as saying I am above the ruleset, perhaps if I select every other letter and read it backwards??

This has nothing to do with having the last word. I'm sorry that I won't stop posting just because of some ill-conceived belief on the part of yourself and others that you have "made your point". Thank you for making your point. In fact, Skraus made MY point in his last post, stating that implementing alignment change would have to occur while also implementing the impact on character class that alignment change would necessitate in certain circumstances (the best example being where a paladin changes his alignment from Lawful Good). Not only would the game have to prevent the further progression in that class (in this example paladin... that's easy enough) but it would also have to suppress the previously-achieved class abilities. Therefore, in effect, converting previously achieved paladin levels to fighter levels.

This would have to occur IN ORDER to remain consistent with the ruleset, not in contravention of said ruleset.

Skraus1 has made many valid points and has refuted your arguments (much better than I ever could) but you insist on having the final word. (If my assumpion is correct, you'll even reply to this, so you can still have the final word) For all your well written arguments, your biggest flaw IMO is you belief yourself to be above the rule set (stated as you would say "from your own words"). Lucky for us Gary Gygax didn't come to you when he decided to put together this great concept for us. Bottom line is the rule set says otherwise and one day we might see some form of alignment shift mechanism.

When have I, even once, stated that DDO should vary from the rule set?

Quite the opposite. Alignment change, as it has been suggested by a few in this thread, cannot be implemented in a way that remains consistent with the ruleset. It would have to create a mechanism by which alignment means something more than simply a statistic that determines the use of particular items in order to remain consistent with the ruleset.

Skraus1, indeed, has made many vaild points. However, his points support my position that alignment change cannot be implemented without implementing a class change mechanism. I am not advocating for a mechanism to change class and race, only pointing out that such a change would have to occur in order to properly implement any sort of alignment change mechanism.

I further argue that there is no difference, in the context of DDO, between the contention that alignment change should be allowed and those that argue for a full respecification (including race, class, skills, etc.).

The sole fact that the ruleset allows for alignment change but not a change in class, etc., is not, in itself, an argument that stands on its own. The application of alignment in the PnP rules is different than its application in DDO. In PnP, the player's actions determines alignment choice as much as the pencil-stroke on the character sheet. In DDO, alignment is just a statistic that only determines the ability to choose certain classes and the use of certain items.

As stated earlier, adhering more closely to action-based determination of alignment as a counter-balance to voluntary "respecification" of alignment would would make a lot more sense. I think I actually said that a few posts ago. Funny how no one seems to notice posts like that but instead erroneously attribute other interpretations to my posts...

[The_Old_Sage]

Agreed Tenkari,

If you read further ino the post, Skraus1 explained this very well. No one is suggesting we change the rule set. Quite the opposite; the rules allow for a neutral good fighter to shift toward lawful good through deeds or spells. The ability to adapt "within" the rule set, is the main consideration. All the examples you stated would be correct. Certain shifts would have consequences and according to the rules it should.

Agreed. In the case of a neutral good fighter shifting to Lawful Good and then beginning to select paladin levels, that's no problem. However, in the case of a paladin switching to, for example, chaotic good, previously-attained class abilities would be lost (retroactive respecification to fighter levels) and paladin levels would not be accessible based on the new alignment.

The only question I would ask, in your scenario, is this: Would a paladin who lost previously attained paladin levels because of an alignment change to chaotic good regain his abilities for these levels if he changed back to lawful good?

I know that you are talking about simply a mechanic that adjusts the abilities associated with particular alignment-based classes rather than wholesale retroactive changes in those classes. So a bard would still "retain" bard level regardless of alignment, and alignment would only determine access to abilities associated with the class. Plausible to some extent, but in the context of DDO's current framework, I find it hard to believe the game could do anything other than offer alignment change only to builds that do not have alignment-based classes, rather than make those retroactive ability adjustments that you are suggesting.

However, if you're of the strong belief that such change could occur, who am I to dissuade you from that belief?

[Alazure]

You're so predictable and blinded by your own words; lol

[LOUDRampart]

How obtuse can people be? The question in mind is can players have a way to change their characters alignment if they choose? What the answer should be is if the player’s character and classes still meet the requirements of said new alignment they wish to change to, then yes. If it is outside the Class/Alignment requirement/restrictions then No. This answer should take care of all the Pali, Barb, Bard, Monk, etc concerns…

How much simpler can it be?

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

Agreed. In the case of a neutral good fighter shifting to Lawful Good and then beginning to select paladin levels, that's no problem. However, in the case of a paladin switching to, for example, chaotic good, previously-attained class abilities would be lost (retroactive respecification to fighter levels) and paladin levels would not be accessible based on the new alignment.

The only question I would ask, in your scenario, is this: Would a paladin who lost previously attained paladin levels because of an alignment change to chaotic good regain his abilities for these levels if he changed back to lawful good?

I know that you are talking about simply a mechanic that adjusts the abilities associated with particular alignment-based classes rather than wholesale retroactive changes in those classes. So a bard would still "retain" bard level regardless of alignment, and alignment would only determine access to abilities associated with the class. Plausible to some extent, but in the context of DDO's current framework, I find it hard to believe the game could do anything other than offer alignment change only to builds that do not have alignment-based classes, rather than make those retroactive ability adjustments that you are suggesting.

However, if you're of the strong belief that such change could occur, who am I to dissuade you from that belief?

it specifically states that a bard can retain all bardic abilities if he changes away to a lawful alignment, he just doesnt GAIN any new bard abilities. paladins can get their powers back in D&D if they loose them, so i see why not get them back if you shift away then back, but you still cant have a raging paladin. while you can have a singing one, but he wouldnt gain any more bardic songs. though technically, you shouldnt have pally multiclasses in DDO anyway, as even a LG pally cant get more pally levels once he takes another class.

[The_Old_Sage]

well, first they would have to make it so that if you get rid of your special class abilities when you change alignments. Like any none lawful good pallys shouldnt beable to use their auras, and loose all their spally abilities, any lawful bards should be unable to gain new levels in bards, nor gain any new songs, lawful barbs should be unable to rage... ect. they would have to code all that in before adding a system like this.

I've always been unclear as to what happens to bards that become lawful in the 3.5 rule set. Do they lose all bard abilities (like a paladin does) or are they simply unable to further advance as a bard?

Only way i see an alignment change implemented is an in game thing for 'if' certain prestige classes like blackguard come out, and IF they add in the fallen paladin stuff, thus there should be an in game way for paladins to become blackguards liek that, unless of course its an autpomatic allignment change if a pally becomes a blackguard.

Prestige classes, if they are ever implemented in DDO, are definitely another consideration for any alignment change proposal. But I think it's more fundamental than that. As a previous poster stated, any sort of alignment change mechanic should logically coincide with the introduction of evil alignments. Another poster advocated certain action-based consequences with regards to alignment.

Both good suggestions, they also empasize the close connection between alignment and class in D&D. I don't advocate switching classes retroactively, but the mechanics are closely linked.

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

I've always been unclear as to what happens to bards that become lawful in the 3.5 rule set. Do they lose all bard abilities (like a paladin does) or are they simply unable to further advance as a bard?

see my previous post.though, here take a look at this if its still fuzzy.

Ex-Bards

A bard who becomes lawful in alignment cannot progress in levels as a bard, though he retains all his bard abilities.

[The_Old_Sage]

it specifically states that a bard can retain all bardic abilities if he changes away to a lawful alignment, he just doesnt GAIN any new bard abilities. paladins can get their powers back in D&D if they loose them, so i see why not get them back if you shift away then back, but you still cant have a raging paladin. while you can have a singing one, but he wouldnt gain any more bardic songs. though technically, you shouldnt have pally multiclasses in DDO anyway, as even a LG pally cant get more pally levels once he takes another class.

Thanks, you ninja-answered the question I made in my next post.

You're absolutely right. In the context of rulesets prior to 3.5, it was always understood that the only alternative class a paladin could consider while still retaining paladin abilities is a cleric. Was it 3.5 that allowed paladin/rogue or paladin/sorceror combos or is that just a change adopted by video-game adaptations of 3.5 rules like NWN and DDO?

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

taken form the SRD "Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities."

basically, they have to reach their desired paladin level before they MC, because once htey MC, they dont get to raise their paladin levels anymore.

[The_Old_Sage]

taken form the SRD "Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities."

basically, they have to reach their desired paladin level before they MC, because once htey MC, they dont get to raise their paladin levels anymore.

Thanks for the quick response. So basically the DDO multi-class interpretation is a variation from the ruleset.

[Tenkari_Rozahas]

basically the only restrictions they put in here alignment based, they didnt think of any class based MC restrictions.

[The_Old_Sage]

You're so predictable and blinded by your own words; lol

I guess I have to keep apologizing for having the audacity to post my views on this forum.

[The_Old_Sage]

How obtuse can people be? The question in mind is can players have a way to change their characters alignment if they choose? What the answer should be is if the player’s character and classes still meet the requirements of said new alignment they wish to change to, then yes. If it is outside the Class/Alignment requirement/restrictions then No. This answer should take care of all the Pali, Barb, Bard, Monk, etc concerns…

How much simpler can it be?

It is simple if you approach it that way. But you do realize that what you're doing, in effect, is allowing one group of players to respecify an aspect of their character (in this case alignment) and denying that to others based solely on which class they chose upon creation.

If you're ok with that, based on the premise that the person knew upon choosing that class that they were stuck with that choice because of the alignment restriction, then indeed, yours is the simple answer. Alignment, then, becomes completely trivial (as previously stated) unless you're a paladin, barbarian, bard, monk, etc.

I would personally prefer something more in line with PnP whereby alignment change for paladins, monks, etc. is still possible, but bears the related loss in class abilities, etc. That's not as simple, obviously, but I believe it would make alignment choice in DDO more true to the ruleset.

[LOUDRampart]

I would personally prefer something more in line with PnP whereby alignment change for paladins, monks, etc. is still possible, but bears the related loss in class abilities, etc. That's not as simple, obviously, but I believe it would make alignment choice in DDO more true to the ruleset.

What you prefer and what the op is asking are two separate issues. It is simple. If you want to play a Paladin, you must be LG. It is even stated in the character build screen. However, if you want to play a cleric and choose LN and then find later you would like to change to LG, why can’t this character do so?

As concerning your preference, I believe we are in line with each other. I would love this MMO to have consequences if someone does things outside of their chosen alignment. But alas, it is an MMO where the only factors alignment makes a difference about are the class you can choose and the weapons you can wield (and armor if you are TN)… And understandably, those that now regret their alignment choices at character creation are asking for a way to change this instead of rerolling. Personally, I think it’s a reasonable request as long as the basic alignment restrictions are still followed.

[The_Old_Sage]

What you prefer and what the op is asking are two separate issues. It is simple. If you want to play a Paladin, you must be LG. It is even stated in the character build screen. However, if you want to play a cleric and choose LN and then find later you would like to change to LG, why can’t this character do so?

As concerning your preference, I believe we are in line with each other. I would love this MMO to have consequences if someone does things outside of their chosen alignment. But alas, it is an MMO where the only factors alignment makes a difference about are the class you can choose and the weapons you can wield (and armor if you are TN)… And understandably, those that now regret their alignment choices at character creation are asking for a way to change this instead of rerolling. Personally, I think it’s a reasonable request as long as the basic alignment restrictions are still followed.

Agreed. Never at any point have I suggested that the basic alignment restrictions for classes like paladin, barbarian and bard be changed regardless of the words some other posters seem to like to put in my mouth. As I stated before, the simple model of allowing alignment change for those classes where alignment is, in effect, meaningless, is not so much a problem as the fact that the rationale behind why people would WANT to change alignment IS a problem.

Those who would argue for a full respecification option (for class, race, skills, etc.) would use the same line of reasoning: that they regret the choices made at character creation and would like to change them. Although I am not crazy about the idea full character respecification, I have attempted (and not so successfully, I regretfully admit) to articulate that the rationale for full respec and the rationale for alignment change are the same. Using the argument that because the PnP rules allow for alignment change justifies that it should be allowed and not class and race changes is, to me, weak.

Although the rules do not allow for race and class changes in the same manner that they do for alignment change (through the atonement spell), does not mean that the rules FORBID class, race, skills an other changes. Wish spells, reincarnation spells, belts of masculinity/femininity are all "possible" avenues for such a change, similar to the Fred the Mind Flayer solution to feat respec.

Allowing alignment change is certainly not a game-breaker, especially under the conditions you have stated, LOUDRampart. However, at the risk of being accused of using the "slippery slope" argument once again, what would you then say to those who demand class, skill and race (and even gender) respec?

[skraus1]

After saying that is not the case that alignment changes need to be tied necessarily to class changes, and I mean true class changes, I stated:

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

At which point, Old Sage stated

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.

In fact, I never really saw your point that alignment changes are inevitable tied and will cause class changes in ddo.

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.

[skraus1]

To give you an idea of why option 2 is difficult, fallen bards are never really explained in the Phb. If they simply can't progress when lawful, but kept their class features, you could start as a rogue2/bard 10 warchanter. You then become lawful good and add 2 levels of paladin. Now all your saves are in the high 20s to 30s with evasion, if built right 280 or so hp, you have full rogue skills, your songs give +7 to hit, +6 to damage and DR5, you have full weapon profeciences, +35-40 to hit, with the ability to cast your own displacement and haste and enough umd to cast tensors transformation, heal and raise.

And people thought batman builds were overpowered lol.