Alignment change

[Fennario]

Chaotic Neutral is the only one that doesn't make sense, to be honest.

You're leaving out Pure Good. If you'd have UMD, that wouldn't be a problem but if you got UMD then you should be Neutral.

Sure, its not the best choice. Just was saying there was an argument for it, even if it is weak.

What if you wanted your non UMD build to dual wield Chaosblades, wear the Marilith Chain, and Litany of the Dead trinket without neg levels? Your only option would be Chaotic Neutral.

Not the best argument, but an argument none the less.

[Silverjade]

Not only do I dislike the idea of alignment change, but I also dislike the ability to enhancement change and feat change and bards and sorcs ability to spell change. Characters should be built with cement, and not silly puddy. Make a mistake, adds character. Make a bunch of mistakes, reroll. Rigid and unpopular Im sure, but still my preferance.

In pnp sor/bards can change their spells every 4 levels i belive and at my GM at lest has let me change out a feat for a another and skills once but only once.Alignment change would be like violateing your alignment.
So their is no really good resson not to add it becuase it is there in pnp and ddo can make it a one time thing like the free feat change.
I really want this to reset my sor who got hit by the bug and for one other char that i forgot to change the alignment on when making it and class restraints should come in to play with this so that you can not be a rangerx/barbx/monkx.

[Turial]

Sure, its not the best choice. Just was saying there was an argument for it, even if it is weak.

What if you wanted your non UMD build to dual wield Chaosblades, wear the Marilith Chain, and Litany of the Dead trinket without neg levels? Your only option would be Chaotic Neutral.

Not the best argument, but an argument none the less.

Thats a nice setup for a barb by the way. Nothing like gaining hp back almost every single swing. Too bad you are likely loosing it as quickly but no matter.

[uhgungawa]

/not signed

even though i have toons that would do that. if they do this then people would be asking for class changes next, then stat point changes, ect, ect, ect

this would just open the flood gates, and cause alot more problems.

[Anyria]

Please do it now!

[Borror0]

this would just open the flood gates, and cause alot more problems.

Well, what you mention is needed in a game where they keep on changing care components to the game.

As for 'opening the door', you mean that Fred didn't do that already? (Memnir will probably post a Fred for change picture now... right?)

[Varr]

That is just it, the flood gates have been opened.........with feat and enhancment and spell respecing.

Alignement, then skills, then class, and finally stat respecing is all that is left and Ive seen posts for each of these to be redoable. They are, at level 1.

Respecing is simply a way to keep players passified that would rather adjust there current character for more something.......power, flexability, perfection.........than live with minor flaws or recreate a newer and better version building on experiance.

It makes no sence to me that skills or willfull spells or potent abilities could be lost and forgotten in place of new ones. New surely can be learned.......which happens as characters level. Yes applying some reality to a fantasy game........

I want my fantasy game as realistic as makes sence, break reality when it enhances the environment and experiance.............

[frugal_gourmet]

Even WoW has alignment and that's the most simplistic MMO on the market.

Alignment IS Roleplaying. Alignment has been a staple of D&D since its inception. Paladin is Lawful Good Only, Barbs are Chaotic Only , Monks are Neutral Only....need I go on?

I'm not in agreement that alignment "is" roleplaying. It's a tool Gary Gygax designed to help DMs guide their party's actions, and he admitted it was probably a bad idea.

In a video game, there usually is no acting of roles, and -- if there is -- alignment is unnecessary because it would have to be self-policing acting of roles. No DM or similar monitoring of behavior by a 3rd party.

So, it functions as yet another dynamic to distinguish character archetypes from another. I'm a barbarian, so I don't value order. I'm a paladin, so I do. Etc. However, I feel that it's a very weak dynamic in the present game. If you're going to implement it, it must be done cleverly enough that all alignments have a purpose and place that is roughly equivalent.

I will admit that it could be pulled off and we could have an alignment system, but it just presently isn't. I wouldn't shed a tear if it were gone entirely. It doesn't add much, in my opinion, while increasing the complexity.

[Fennario]

Not only do I dislike the idea of alignment change, but I also dislike the ability to enhancement change and feat change and bards and sorcs ability to spell change. Characters should be built with cement, and not silly puddy. Make a mistake, adds character. Make a bunch of mistakes, reroll. Rigid and unpopular Im sure, but still my preferance.

I hope you're joking about the sorc/bard spell thing. If that were the case, then my sorcerer's (who I rolled up shortly after launch and still play) level 1-5 spells would look something like this:

1) Magic Missile, Hypnotism, Expeditious Retreat, Burning Hands

2) Web, Otto's, Scorching Ray, Hypnotic Pattern

3) Haste, Fireball, Lightning Bolt

4) PK, Bestow Curse

5) Hold Monster

Or at least that's how I remember my spells when the cap was level 10.

You've got to remember that when they release new spells, its just not new high level spells, but it also is new low level spells.

Your proposal would make it very hard for a sorc or bard to remain viable in an ever evolving game. I look at that spell list now and laugh as I have less than half of them in my current spellbook.

That wouldn't be so much fun, and that's what the most important thing about playing a game is right? Isn't it?

[Varr]

I was serious, and still am about the spell selections of bards and sorcs. The only exception I can jsutify is the addition of spells......as an example if you had a bard taht was not allowed to select masters touch in that it was not available when he was drafted, and the spell got added to the game, I would conceed the bard should have the right to remake that dissission. Or merfolks for a Sorc as another example. I dont think sorcs should be allowed to take hypno at level 1 then respec it for jump at level 7, or charm person at level 2 and take magic missle at 5 instead.

Like a fighter forgetting how to be tough and instead being bull headed, I dont like the flexability of spell selection personaly...........Var the sorc knows how to willfully hypnotize weak minded critters but then he forgot how to do that and instead can jump real high. Spell flexability is a wizards boon, and a sorc and bards bane in my opinioin, sorcs and bards get other benifits.

And yes, Im very rigid about this view point.......it is not warm and fuzzy and forgiving, but makes more 'real life in a fantasy world' sense to me. Fear not, the game is treanding towards flexable and forgiving, not my views.

You having fun is certainly not the most important thing..........The greater world kneeling to Varrs every whim and his requsts being its demands is the most important thing.

[Fennario]

I was serious, and still am about the spell selections of bards and sorcs. The only exception I can jsutify is the addition of spells......as an example if you had a bard taht was not allowed to select masters touch in that it was not available when he was drafted, and the spell got added to the game, I would conceed the bard should have the right to remake that dissission. Or merfolks for a Sorc as another example. I dont think sorcs should be allowed to take hypno at level 1 then respec it for jump at level 7, or charm person at level 2 and take magic missle at 5 instead.

Like a fighter forgetting how to be tough and instead being bull headed, I dont like the flexability of spell selection personaly...........Var the sorc knows how to willfully hypnotize weak minded critters but then he forgot how to do that and instead can jump real high. Spell flexability is a wizards boon, and a sorc and bards bane in my opinioin, sorcs and bards get other benifits.

And yes, Im very rigid about this view point.......it is not warm and fuzzy and forgiving, but makes more 'real life in a fantasy world' sense to me. Fear not, the game is treanding towards flexable and forgiving, not my views.

I get what your saying, but it just doesn't work for an ever evolving game.

For example, when I chose those spells:

Jump only gave a +10 bonus. Now it scales to +20 and +30.

There were no such thing a 30% striding items which is better than Expeditious.

PK only had 1 save instead of 2, and there was no FOD.

There was no Dancing Ball making Otto's less desirable.

There was no Firewall making Fireball less desirable.

There was no Chain Lightning making Lightning Bolt less desirable.

I could go on, and on.

If you were stuck with the spells you had from the beginning, you would have to reroll every new mod. Who wants to do that? You would make sorcerers obsolete.

In DnD you know what the rules are, you know what the spells are, you know what is coming. Most everything is laid out for you. IN DDO that is simply not the case. Everything changes. And so must our characters.

[Varr]

Yea your right acutally..................I will change my stance on sorc and bard spell selections being flexable as they continue to add spells and content. Since I reroll all the time, for me this is not as cumbersome and it would likely be for many players.

Read it hear first..............!!!! For the first time in any forum post.....one poster (me) was actally convinced by another posters (fennario's) arguement to take a 180 degree turn and flip sides on a topic.

Im pretty sure that the formus as a whole are about to shut down.

[Fennario]

Read it hear first..............!!!! For the first time in any forum post.....one poster (me) was actally convinced by another posters (fennario's) arguement to take a 180 degree turn and flip sides on a topic.

Im pretty sure that the formus as a whole are about to shut down.

LOL.

Now if I could do the same in an argument with my wife... just one time... I'm pretty sure the Earth would stop rotating.

[Gennerik]

Varr, I hate to say it, but it's not being able to change alignment that really makes no sense. In reality, you can change your point of view and your feelings about what's important to you. That's part of the significance of alignment. It reflects what ideals you uphold. They should reflect the choices you make, not be selected at birth and then you get straight-jacketed into that role. In DnD, Paladins don't automatically stay Lawful Good. Instead, they have to choose the right choices to keep their alignment. Alignment is something that you should actively work on to keep.

[redoubt]

Yea your right acutally..................I will change my stance on sorc and bard spell selections being flexable as they continue to add spells and content. Since I reroll all the time, for me this is not as cumbersome and it would likely be for many players.

Read it hear first..............!!!! For the first time in any forum post.....one poster (me) was actally convinced by another posters (fennario's) arguement to take a 180 degree turn and flip sides on a topic.

Im pretty sure that the formus as a whole are about to shut down.

Don't tell anyone, but a rational debate actually had me change my mind once here as well. Though I'm not too worried. You see, rational debates rarely happen on the forums, so I think we are safe!

[redoubt]

SWG had a faction system. You actions earned or cost you points with various factions. It was actually a pretty good system for monitoring your alignment status. It made you choose you had good favor with and who you had bad favor with. You could not have good favor with everyone. Kind of like alignments in D&D. Though, I think it would be much tougher to adapt that to this game for the purpose of monitoring alignment.

[cdbd3rd]

Just like I always say when one of these threads gets posted:

Please add this. The penalties for picking the wrong alignment are excessive, and most everything else has a respec available. Limit it to alignments available to your existing class, but add it in. I'm sure Fred could handle this sort of job if given the chance.

Ink

/Whacks on decomposing equine again for good measure.

That's the part I think some folks miss, is that it should NEVER be possible to change to any alignment your class restricts you from. Would also agree it should be a once-in-a-character's-lifetime deal. [edit: referring here strictly to DDO.]

IMO, to make it where an alignment change out-of-class would change your whole class would indeed be too bulky and problem-ridden. (i.e. - paladins going chaotic becoming 8HD fighters... too many potential bugs to be worth that.)

[Borror0]

SWG had a faction system.

Great, now you just convinced many people it's a bad idea.

[silverraven]

Now you can go on.

thanx

[silverraven]

I'm not in agreement that alignment "is" roleplaying. It's a tool Gary Gygax designed to help DMs guide their party's actions, and he admitted it was probably a bad idea.

In a video game, there usually is no acting of roles, and -- if there is -- alignment is unnecessary because it would have to be self-policing acting of roles. No DM or similar monitoring of behavior by a 3rd party.

So, it functions as yet another dynamic to distinguish character archetypes from another. I'm a barbarian, so I don't value order. I'm a paladin, so I do. Etc. However, I feel that it's a very weak dynamic in the present game. If you're going to implement it, it must be done cleverly enough that all alignments have a purpose and place that is roughly equivalent.

I will admit that it could be pulled off and we could have an alignment system, but it just presently isn't. I wouldn't shed a tear if it were gone entirely. It doesn't add much, in my opinion, while increasing the complexity.

My main point was that if a character does something, there is always the question of Why. If alignment wasn't there there would be no Why. Why? Why Not? Alignment!

Aside form the argument of letting everybody use everything, which to me is boring.