Cerilian Monks… Why Not? [Archive]

irdeggman

08-12-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Elrond@Aug 12 2003, 07:07 AM
Monks were absent from D&D 2nd edition and thus from Birthright setting. But third edition reintroduced them into play, so why not introduce monks in Birthright? Personally, I don’t like the powers that give this class an oriental flavour (principally ki strike and slow fall). A lot of their abilities are justified by ki energy. Suppose Cerilian monks could channel a different kind of energy… the residual divine energy of Deismaar. Discipline (and lawful alignment) could be the focus for non blooded characters to tap on these energies. Monks could thus develop divination powers (Vorynn’ heritage), martial arts (Haelyn’s heritage), and chose to be good, neutral or evil (Azrai’s heritage).
What do you think about it?
Yes, but they are still oriental in flavor. There aren't any known societies in Cerilia that support this type of class. Perhaps in Aduria? But that is outside of the bounds of this project - basically it is for Cerilia and not Aduria.

In the DMG many times it talks about monks and how they might not fit into every campaign setting.

The barbarian class was determined to fit quite well into various cultures, especially the Vos and Rjurik so it was "allowed" so to speak. That is the main difference between the two "new" 3.0 classes in regards to the BRCS-playtest.

And before someone jumps on it, monks are mentioned in various BR texts, specifically in Khinasi in regards to temples. This is basically not the monk class but rather the academic one, you know the one mentioned as a cloistered and copying spiritiual texts, etc. These are two very different treatments of something with the same name.

But as a DM you are "free" to specifically allow monks in your campaign if you desire it was just determined that there wasn't sufficient cultural backing to support it being a class in the BRCS-playtest document.

kgauck

08-12-2003, 01:40 PM

ge -----

From: "Elrond" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:07 AM

> A lot of their abilities are justified by ki energy. Suppose Cerilian

> monks could channel a different kind of energy. the residual divine

> energy of Deismaar.

Ki energy is the life force that animates all living things. Its often

translated as breath, spirit, or life force. If we used a different word,

say "focus" or "discipline" it would be perfectly applicable to anyone. If

I said I made a new feat called Disciplined Mind and it granted a +2 bonus

to enchantment would anyone say it doesn`t belong in BR? On the contrary,

it could be argued that followers of Haelyn would prize such mental

discipline. The real problem would be is it really neccesary as a feat when

we already have Iron Will. Maybe as a class feature for a Haelyn based PrC.

What about Focused Strike, allowing an attack to penetrate damage reduction

as if the attack had a magic +1 bonus? Ruornil`s partisans combat undead,

who often have damage reduction. They would probabaly call it Esoteric

Technique. Same mechanic, different name. All that needs to be done in BR

to add the monk is abandon Eastern names and the specific Eastern

interpretations of rather universal concepts. There are places where I

think a contemplative warrior would make sense.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Azrai

08-12-2003, 02:13 PM

We had this Monk-discussion some time ago. Some people think the Monk has an oriental flair and thus does not fit into the BR setting.

However, I'am still one of the people who like the Monks. IMO the Monk is related to an oriental setting but not tied to it. It's easy to define a non-oriental Monk. Glad there are other Monk-fans around....

irdeggman

08-12-2003, 06:20 PM

Elrond,

Just so you can read the previous discussion on the feasability of monks in Birthright, here's the link to the old thread. It gets tedious revisiting the same discussions repeatedly. Not that you'd have any idea about that being new to the board and such. Maybe some of the questions and arguments for (and against) can be read to gain an understanding of why this decision was made.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...=ST&f=36&t=1261 (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1261)

Elrond

08-12-2003, 10:58 PM

it was just determined that there wasn't sufficient cultural backing to support it being a class in the BRCS-playtest document

If you consider the PH’s monk, you’re right. My proposal is to create a Cerilian monk class. Substitute ki with “residual divine energy of Deismaar”. Eliminate the oriental flair of the original monk, and the class will fit perfectly in the Birthright setting. And I remember you that boxe and wrestling existed among ancient Romans and Greeks. Martial arts are not exclusive prerogatives of asian cultures.
“Diamond soul” could be considered as the legacy of Vorynn’s divine essence, “abundant step” is Azrai’s legacy, “diamond body” comes from Reynir, “wholeness of body” is inherited from Haelyn, and so on... The Cerilian monk is a non blooded individual (of course blooded ones are permitted) capable of tapping the divine essence released at Mount Deismaar. Discipline helps him mastering this energy.

Elrond,

Just so you can read the previous discussion on the feasability of monks in Birthright, here's the link to the old thread. It gets tedious revisiting the same discussions repeatedly. Not that you'd have any idea about that being new to the board and such. Maybe some of the questions and arguments for (and against) can be read to gain an understanding of why this decision was made.

Ok, thanks. The topic can be closed.

Ariadne

08-13-2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Elrond@Aug 12 2003, 11:58 PM
“Diamond soul” could be considered as the legacy of Vorynn’s divine essence, “abundant step” is Azrai’s legacy, “diamond body” comes from Reynir, “wholeness of body” is inherited from Haelyn, and so on... The Cerilian monk is a non blooded individual (of course blooded ones are permitted) capable of tapping the divine essence released at Mount Deismaar. Discipline helps him mastering this energy.
I already know that this monk topic is really discussed to death, but your idea is not bad IMO. But if those abilities "come from the gods", then this class should be for blooded individuals only...

But this is only my opinion, and I'm from the minority who are FOR monks in Cerilia...

BTW “wholeness of body” would be inherited from Andurias, I think... ;)

Elrond

08-13-2003, 01:33 PM

I already know that this monk topic is really discussed to death, but your idea is not bad IMO.

I’ve read the topic linked by irdeggman. It’s several months old (and inactive since early march) and there are no concrete proposals for a Cerilian monk revised class.

But if those abilities "come from the gods", then this class should be for blooded individuals only...

Blooded individuals have divine essence running through their veins. It’s a genetically inherited power.
At Deismaar, the divine essence released by the dying gods was absorbed by people or by the land itself. I’m adding a third option: this energy is also in the air. But it can be tapped only by those individuals (monks) that train their bodies and their minds toward this objective. And discipline can be achieved by everyone, not only by blooded characters.
This monk loses the oriental flair and replaces ki with divine energy. It’s perfectly coherent with the Birthright campaign setting. Monks fight unarmed because they channel this power through their body and deliver their special attacks with bare fists. Thus, no need of social or historical justification for the monks developing bare handed martial arts (such as the one that says “oppression, will to rebel and prohibition against carrying weapons are the reasons why martial arts were born in eastern Asia”).

BTW “wholeness of body” would be inherited from Anduiras, I think...

Yes, of course. Lapsus...

kgauck

08-13-2003, 03:26 PM

ge -----

From: "Elrond" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:33 AM

> there are no concrete proposals for a Cerilian monk revised class.

I beg to differ. I actually posted a complete class conversion. I am not

enthusiastic about a using "Deismaar energy" as a ki substitute. AFAIC, the

monk is a hand-to-hand combatant with an oriental flair. BR certanly has

brawlers and others who primarily fight with fists. They don`t *need*

explanations for fantastic powers.

I have no objection to the Deismaar monk for anyone elses campaign, but it

strikes me as contrived and I am perfectly happy to strip away the oriental

flair of the monk class and use it as a brawler without any special

explanations.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Elrond

08-13-2003, 04:50 PM

I beg to differ.* I actually posted a complete class conversion.

Sorry, I didn't notice. I've just read the topic linked by irdeggman. I'm quite new to this forum.
So my proposal is just... another proposal.

P.s.: can you give me the link to your conversion, please? Tnx!

Gunnar

08-16-2003, 12:21 AM

I have incorporated Monks into my campaign as assistants to the clerics of each diety. I did not rename any of the abilitites or anything, just added the Monk to the clergy. The idea behind this was that no Oriental society existed, so whose to say that the idea of "Ki" just doesn't exist across the pantheon.

Their primary function is to do the bidding of the clerics of the faith, ie.. messenger, enforcer, bodyguard, spy, etc.

They are distrustful of the other faiths in general, will not even associate with monks of another faith, and must be the same faith as the cleric in the group to avoid conflicts.

Ron

RaspK_FOG

08-16-2003, 12:56 AM

Well, no monks for me in Cerilia... I am working on a more friar/reverent father prototype of class, which I call the... Monk (jee, that was very original!) and who can achieve a Mystic template if high in level and copes to fulfill a quest. (Much like the way I handle Paladins in my own, non-Cerilian campaign with a Knight class; Monks are like that there too...)

irdeggman

08-16-2003, 12:23 PM

From PHB (3.5)
“A monk’s training is her spiritual path. She is inner-directed and capable of a private, mystic connection to the spiritual world, so she needs neither clerics nor gods. . . . .A monk typically trains in a monastery. Most monks were children when they joined the monastery, sent to live there when their parents died, when there wasn’t enough food to support them, or in return for some kindness that the monastery had performed for the family. . . . The monk tradition is alien to dwarf and gnome culture and halflings typically have too mobile a lifestyle to commit themselves to a monastery, so dwarves, gnomes and halflings very rarely become monks.”

It does also say that elves can become monks due to their ability to commit to a long term philosophy. But since Cerilian elves are almost always non-lawful in alignment and monks must be lawful, Cerilian elves would most likely not be monks.

IMO the core of a monk is their internal focus, their desire for self-perfection and non-reliance on any outside force.

What this translates to is that linking a monk’s abilities to a bloodline is very weak since a bloodline is a divine gift and not something that a monk develops to perfect himself.

Also cultures that are focused on external things, like dwarves, elves, Rjurik, Brecht are not very conducive to supporting monk development as a class. Rjurik are focused on nature which is a very external concept. Vos also tend to be chaotic and hence are also not very conducive to supporting monks as a class. Anuireans tend to be focused on rulership and conquering, also not very conducive to supporting monks as a class. Khinasi could somewhat support development of monks as a class except for their propensity to study magic which is clearly an external force, the manipulation of mebhaighl.

Elrond

08-17-2003, 09:35 PM

IMO the core of a monk is their internal focus, their desire for self-perfection and non-reliance on any outside force.

What this translates to is that linking a monk’s abilities to a bloodline is very weak since a bloodline is a divine gift and not something that a monk develops to perfect himself.

Bloodline is considered a divine gift by most Cerilians and a curse by many elves. But the divine power released at Deismaar can also be conceived as an energy that the gods kept for themselves. Read again what I’ve written: “At Deismaar, the divine essence released by the dying gods was absorbed by people or by the land itself. I’m adding a third option: this energy is also in the air.” This means monks don’t need to be blooded scions. Of course they no longer focus only on an inner strength, but they need inner strength if they want to manipulate this energy. It’s slightly different from the PH’s monk. That’s why I’m talking about a Cerilian monk. If we change a little bit the philosophy of the class, we can introduce the monk in Birthright.

irdeggman

08-17-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Elrond@Aug 17 2003, 04:35 PM

Of course they no longer focus only on an inner strength, but they need inner strength if they want to manipulate this energy. It’s slightly different from the PH’s monk. That’s why I’m talking about a Cerilian monk. If we change a little bit the philosophy of the class, we can introduce the monk in Birthright.
The "philosophy" is what makes a monk a monk. It's like saying that a paladin doesn't have to have a strong connection to his deity in order to gain his abilities.

Elrond

08-17-2003, 11:30 PM

The "philosophy" is what makes a monk a monk.

A different philosophy is what makes a Cerilian monk a Cerilian monk. ;)

QuestingMage

09-06-2003, 03:11 PM

RaspK FOG wrote:
Much like the way I handle Paladins in my own, non-Cerilian campaign with a Knight class
Have you posted your knight class somewhere? I'd be interested in looking at it.

Thanks.

Airgedok

09-08-2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman+Aug 17 2003, 09:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Aug 17 2003, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Elrond@Aug 17 2003, 04:35 PM

Of course they no longer focus only on an inner strength, but they need inner strength if they want to manipulate this energy. It’s slightly different from the PH’s monk. That’s why I’m talking about a Cerilian monk. If we change a little bit the philosophy of the class, we can introduce the monk in Birthright.
The "philosophy" is what makes a monk a monk. It's like saying that a paladin doesn't have to have a strong connection to his deity in order to gain his abilities. [/b][/quote]
Not to pick a side here but in 3.0 a cleric can have NO diety as can a paladin. Which is why the rules for birthright specificaly state the clerics CANT be created that dont follow a deity. So under 3e is perfectly ok to have a paladin who is an athiest and not have a close relation to its diety

The earlier arguments that involve alignment as well... childish not because the argumented was present in a childish manner but because alignment as a concept is childish. Lawful and chaotic are foolish concepts. I can present a argument that Sidhelien are lawful more so than chaotic. Look at their relationship with nature. It takes huge disipline to live in total harmany with nature given that its far easier to just clear cut a field and plant food to feed your people.

The point being that alignemt is a early throw back from 1st generation games that should have been dropped from 3e. People dont follow alighment codes of conduct and dont act in such manners. Psycology laughs at such definitions used to explaign human actions. We are far more complex that 9 different alignments. I find that most advanced gamers throw out alignment and their trappings like spells and use different concepts like protection from outsider ect. In almost every experienced adult group I've talked to they all seem to agree that alignment and alignment restiictions and spell dont work and are childish gaming aids for newbie players. That are not even used by most other roleplaying games.

RaspK_FOG

09-09-2003, 11:16 AM

Not to pick a side here but in 3.0 a cleric can have NO diety as can a paladin. Which is why the rules for birthright specificaly state the clerics CANT be created that dont follow a deity. So under 3e is perfectly ok to have a paladin who is an atheist and not have a close relation to its deity.
Actually, this was also allowed in 2e; read the Complete Paladin's Handbook, one of the best (A)D&D books published, along with Song and Silence. B)

The earlier arguments that involve alignment as well... childish not because the argumented was present in a childish manner but because alignment as a concept is childish. Lawful and chaotic are foolish concepts. I can present a argument that Sidhelien are lawful more so than chaotic. Look at their relationship with nature. It takes huge disipline to live in total harmany with nature given that its far easier to just clear cut a field and plant food to feed your people.
I disagree with that statement: chaotic alignments should not be interpreted as a lack of discipline as much as a lack of being bound to a discipline so much as to put it beyond your moral issues; 3.5 made the good step of introducing the terms moral (good vs. evil) and ethical (law vs. chaos) alignment terms. See the 3.5 DMG under the chapter concerning Planes of Existence.

[To those that argue that chaos is chaos: why should a god which patrons fighters, then, usually be chaotic in alignment?]

The point being that alignement is a early throw back from 1st generation games that should have been dropped from 3e. People dont follow alighment codes of conduct and dont act in such manners. Psycology laughs at such definitions used to explaign human actions. We are far more complex that 9 different alignments. I find that most advanced gamers throw out alignment and their trappings like spells and use different concepts like protection from outsider ect. In almost every experienced adult group I've talked to they all seem to agree that alignment and alignment restiictions and spell dont work and are childish gaming aids for newbie players. That are not even used by most other roleplaying games.
I, once more, have to disagree: D&D has alignments so deeply routed in itself it would be a disaster to simply assume that protection from outsider spells would suffice. In fact, a few d20 products (i.e. The Wheel of Time) do not alignments, but they also do not have devils, demons, angels, dragons, complex pantheons, clerics, etc.

Questing Mage, I have not yet post the Knight class anywhere, since it needs some finetuning: the Paladin class and the Blackguard prestige class are grossly unbalanced (with the issue of former Paladin levels to top); to make things clearer, the Knight class is always lawful, or suffer as if you were a Paladin who no longer is lawful good. The class gets some more neutral aspects, like the special mount, at earlier levels, and adds his Charisma bonus to saving throws, but after 4th level, he may take a (relatively small) quest and if he succeeds he acquires a template appropriate to his alignment: the Paladin, the Grey Knight, or the Blackguard. His class features change according to his template after that.

An issue here is the Grey Knight: he cannot smite good or evil, but smites chaos instead, and he can cure only people of his order or their followers, including himself and his followers, as well as all their subjects and special mounts. In effect, he is more of a Crusader of Law, instead of Good or Evil.

Furthermore, the Knight can receive atonement if his alignment changes, in which case he no longer has the earlier template but acquires a new, appropriate to his alignment.

Last, but not least, there is a prestige class for Knights who are no longer of lawful alignment, the Knight Errant, whcih has a feature similar to the one Blackguards normally have that gives them more abilities if they once were paladins, only this applies to knights instead.

kgauck

09-10-2003, 12:11 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:36 PM

> Then D&D has bungled *its presentation* of its cosmological ideas (in

> fact, it seems to mock them), since so many of us can see in them only

> such simplemindedness, not the intriguing system you describe.

When we look at D&D`s experience system (fundamentally a kill to learn, not

a survive to learn, or study to learn, or learn by doing), or its reward

system (you kill for treasure, especially magical treasure and hoardes

gold), the way the class system has encouraged stereotypes (like the cleric

as medic, the dumb fighter), the way the game ignores routine dangers in

place of spectacular dangers, &c, &c, &c, the whole system seems to stylized

and potentially childish (think: the D&D movie) its no wonder that in the

80`s D&D was kind of a starter system after which players moved on to more

sophisticated gaming in other systems. Never the less, sophisticated gamers

found that with their new insights (from the passage of years, the playing

of more challenging games, and more stimulating books and movies) it was

possible to return to D&D and play it in this new way in which we adventured

for more than just gp and xp, thought about new explanations for hit points,

experience, played class against type (the thoughtful fighter, elaborated

mythos for clerics in which they might not even -gasp- heal), constructed

characters with methods which don`t promote the most eggregious min-maxing

or encourage munchkins. Birthright was one of the game worlds that

facilitated this return to D&D, or at least a reconsideration of the game`s

merits. The alignment system fits in here too, but most of our gaming

growth after getting started in D&D involved amoral, shades of gray, or

competing goods moral systems, not a dulism (Call of Cuthulu may be one of

the exceptions, never played it). So when we returned to D&D, we were much

better able to re-interpret the combat, experience, and mythological systems

, we carried the cosmologies and moral ambiguity over from other kinds of

gaming, rather than returning to the dualism (whether Arthurian grail,

Albigensian, angelic-demonic) which was part of D&D. My own take of Gygax

is that he`s a really well read guy who made an ecclectic, and eccentric

game world from all of these difference sources. The end product is

sometimes such a confusing mix of ideas that we end up ignoring or changing

a few, but its also a rich source of different ideas that it was able to

support the kind of return to D&D which occured (not always

enthusiastically, admittedly). In fact, its too bad that D&D was the

starter game, since much of its richness is lost on begining gamers who end

up seeing hack-and-slash and monty haul as the be all and end of all of

gaming. But this has as much to do with learning to play games that don`t

have conventional winnners and losers as it does all kinds of other issues.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Osprey

09-11-2003, 03:52 PM

KGauck,
I really like your treatment of the evolution of gaming. It resonates strongly with me. The details of it, however, differ a bit. I actually picked up Birthright as one of the last D&D purchases I made after all but quitting D&D for its lack of maturity and generic restrictions of class, alignment, etc. I liked the world but not the system, as it seems do many other Birthright fans.

However, the introduction of 3e helped give the D&D system a new life, in my opinion. The opening up of multiclassing and general flexibility of the skill system, humans described as having advantages, monsters with character classes...all of these suddenly allowed the D&D world to have a huge amount of variety and flexibility that it honestly lacked in earlier editions. Which is why I was excited by the BRCS project, and was enthusiastic about BR's conversion to 3e.

Don't get me wrong: 3e is still hardly the best gaming system out there, but it is a great improvement, all in all, over the older versions, and good enough that I thought I could introduce a much more mature RPG experience in my own campaigns. Particularly with Birthright.

Alignments, for most player-characters, are general guidelines or natures, which I think works fine. If they are dogma for the fanatics and zealots, that's OK, because they are a minority. The shades of gray are essential to believable characters with depth and internal conflicts, and thus "guidelines" becomes far more appropriate for a mature game than strict definitions of personality and behavior. I like to have players develop individual character histories, backgrounds, and personalities, and then see how alignment overlaps with that. The result is very often some sort of neutral alignment, which allows those shades of gray more easily than the extreme ones (LG, CG, CE, LE). But the extremes can be fun for extreme characters, so I'm glad they're there.

Osprey

geeman

09-11-2003, 10:54 PM

Kenneth Gauck writes:

> I don`t think the alignment system was every very strict.

I`d generally agree, but I saw that as more of a fault than a virtue. That

is, the alignment system was so broad as to make it difficult to really

employ in anything other than general terms. (I know that`s not precisely

what Mr. Gauck was getting at in his post, but I`m going to riff off of it

anyway.) That aside, I think my biggest objection was its narrow

focus--despite it being broadly defined terms. That is, "chaos" and "law",

"good" and "evil" are such abstract concepts they sometimes overlap in ways

that makes some actions both "good" and "chaotic" while others are both

"evil" and "lawful" so that if a person were to engage in them he`d wind up

satisfying one aspect his alignment while possibly contradicting another.

Now, it`s fine and dandy to have those kinds of situations. It is, in fact,

one of the fun things about role-playing, but Monte Cooke`s method of using

a point value to relate how good/evil and how lawful/chaotic a character

gives the system a much better range of values and shows their relationships

to one another in a way that I didn`t find very satisfying until then.

Aside from any considerations regarding rating how dedicated a character is

to a particular aspect of the alignment system, my other issue has always

been that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of by

that system. While good/evil, law/chaose might be cosmic forces in the D&D

omniverse, some characters are just as likely to feel as strongly about

other things as characters concerned with alignment do. That is, a fanatic

Templar might consider all things that further the ends of his order as

positive regardless of where they might fall in the good/evil, law/chaos

scale. I`m sure we all know people (and may even be ourselves) who are

dedicated to some organization, person, religion, philsophy, science, etc.

as zealously as a character is regarding his alignment. A system of

allegiances reflects the dynamics and interests of characters who would

otherwise simply be "true neutral" using the alignment system alone.

For BR in particular this kind of thing is a better reflection of the

realities of the political level of play in which many decisions of regents

might be counter to their personal (adventure level) esthetic. There`s also

the dedication of the populace, LTs, Vassals, etc. to consider. Using a

system of allegience can work quite well in determining that sort of thing

too.

While one of the benefits of the good/evil and law/chaos issue is that it

can interact with things like spells and special abilities, it`s just as

easy to picture a "motive" based system of magic that can be used to detect

what a character is dedicated to and base vulnerabilities or advantages on

that knowledge.

Gary

kgauck

09-12-2003, 02:38 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary Foss" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:21 PM

> Aside from any considerations regarding rating how dedicated a character

is

> to a particular aspect of the alignment system, my other issue has always

> been that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of by

> that system.

This is the reason I have adopted a chivalry/renown system. In addition to

the seven classic chivalry points, I have added two Rjurik qualities not on

the list, and would be willing to add qualities unique to a character or

from a forein land (perhaps based on the Five Oaths) its just that most

other characters would not respond to even a high rating in some of these

qualities. A character who set fire to a city in which a great library

burned might be regarded as a war criminal among followers of Avani,

Khinasi, and wizards and scholars. I don`t score for that currently becuase

its a recuring issue, but I`m always willing to add any characteristic that

would effect the PC`s or even major NPC`s.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG

09-12-2003, 07:45 PM

Hmm... using allegiance notes and points is more than you should ask for, in my opinion. While I am in for DM thingies (like the largely debated - for some classes and cases at least - fame and infamy scales), I strongl suggest you do not go the way of allegiance: one might think (and quite effectively be, except if I am wrong in my understanding of what you meant) he is alleged to good, yet be thoroughly evil.

Airgedok

10-12-2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 12 2003, 07:45 PM
Hmm... using allegiance notes and points is more than you should ask for, in my opinion. While I am in for DM thingies (like the largely debated - for some classes and cases at least - fame and infamy scales), I strongl suggest you do not go the way of allegiance: one might think (and quite effectively be, except if I am wrong in my understanding of what you meant) he is alleged to good, yet be thoroughly evil.
And yet this is not an uncommon theme. Think of the copper who commites crimes to capture the evil criminal.

Alignment doesnt work well for all its simplicity. Is there a reason to even have alignment? Almost no other game has these concepts even it fanatasy settings. Role master never had alignment, harmmaster also lacks alignment Runemaster if I recall correctly also doesnt use alignment. Yet these systems have a cosmology and spells and teh concepts of good and evil law and chaos. The have these concepts because these concepts are an inseperable part of teh human condition and by trying to define this intricle part of what make us human D&D has lessened its effect. The alignment restrictions for classes often makes for cardboard cut outs when there is no need. Why is a barbarian an non lawful class? Why is a monk a lawfull class? In D&D the defining characteristic bewtween the two is disapline. And its used to describe why they have the very alignment restrictions inplace. Yet a compelling arguement against using lawful = disapline has be counter to my post but that actually strengthens my point further than my original arguement. The concepts of what is good and evil are easier to deliniate but what is law and chaos in the d&D world? There whole concept breaks down by teh very examples that are given by teh system itself. What purpose does alignment serve but to cheapen the concepts of morality and the concepts of what makes us human. Are we not served better by ignoring all aligment and instead allowing our character to develop more human outlooks? And what great balancing aspect does alignment provide? And who cares if your chaotic good character is actime more lawful neutral? Yet when aligment is added GMs often (not allways) see compelled to enforce aligment by their narrow view point.

Take teh concept of teh paladin. I know a chap that created a Moslem based paladin that when he caught a theif he chopped of his hand. The were appearant uproar over this idea of a lawful good character doing such a terrible thing and yet under teh limited concept of good vs evil and law vs chaos was this not a prper example of lawful good behaviour. He stopped theif both a good and lawful thing to do he chopped off the theifs hand so he couldnt steal again both a good thing and a lawful thing. Yet the conflict arises in that chopping of a theifs hand is chivalous but thats isnt what makes a paladin lawful and good because teh code teh chivorrly are very much classed based your dont extend that code of conduct to the lower classes and that is contrary to the very concept of lawful and good. What you are seeing here is a clasic example of just how far aligment falls short of dealing with human nature and just how ill defined it presents human morality. This is why alignment serves no useful purpose anymore. its a concept that other games dont need and it doesnt add anything to teh "roleplay" aspect of the game as far more interesting moral plays can be invisioned without the restrictions of aligment.

Raesene Andu

10-12-2003, 02:37 PM

I don't use alignment in any of my campaigns. I allow players to choose an alignment (mostly because they want to) and then I completely ignore it. Instead I use a reputation type thingy (technical term) where how a player behaves effects how NPCs view them. It is sooo much easier.

Eosin the Red

10-12-2003, 11:25 PM

> Raesene Andu wrote:

> I don`t use alignment in any of my campaigns. I allow players to choose an alignment (mostly because they want to) and then I completely ignore it. Instead I use a reputation type thingy (technical term) where how a player behaves effects how NPCs view them. It is sooo much easier.

I do this also, never really mentioning this fact to the players but some people seem to get stuck. This really applies in the meta game area where a player says "they can`t do that they are Lawful Good" or some such. Most of the time players never even notice - barring those who tell me that they cast Detect X and I say "I don`t use alingments."

In my PBeM/PbP I use a number of rules that the players remain ignorant of --- FREX: I use wound/vitality points. Very, very useful in a PbeM where combats a less frequent but sharing this with players is not going to enhance the game (I suppose I just told a whole bunch of them) :)

There are a number of tack on rules that are well suited to the PbeM game.

Randy~Eosin

RaspK_FOG

10-16-2003, 10:58 PM

Well, it is always a matter of preference and individualised conceptuality, but I disagree with the idea of not using alignment for anything! True, make them as vague or strict as you see fit, but disposing of them seems to me more of an antithesis tactic than truly an enhancement... Especially with all those divination-masking/blurring/barring things being around, not to mention you actually allow your players to take alignment identifying spells (for a bard or sorcerer, this is pure catastrophe, though I am sure it would lead to interesting role-playing situations with characters who prepare spells: "You know, you realise your spell is flawed. It seems that the legends of spells that can reach out and see through the veils that cover one's own heart were just another hoax... Oh well, so much for the zillions of money you gave for that rare scroll. [GM's evil snicker sounds in the background] :P ). I cannot make you change your mind, but I hope you DO tell your players; withholding such information is really unfair on your part...

As for vitality, I don't know... Both good and bad points, in my opinion. I am working on the construction of a health formula similar to hit points, which will be more realistic, though, having that an amount of non-lethal damage makes up for one point of lethal damage, slashing and piercing weapons that deal bleeding blows, and bludgeoning weapons that deal both lethal and a little non-lethal damage, such things... Oh well!

And, to end with my ranting, I like the fame/infamy scale concept... Heheheh!

The Jew

10-16-2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Oct 12 2003, 03:37 PM
I don't use alignment in any of my campaigns. I allow players to choose an alignment (mostly because they want to) and then I completely ignore it. Instead I use a reputation type thingy (technical term) where how a player behaves effects how NPCs view them. It is sooo much easier.
Just out of curiousity (not that I am in your newest pbem or anything B) ), are their any other core rules or concepts that you have dramatically altered or done away with?

Airgedok

10-21-2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Oct 16 2003, 10:58 PM
Well, it is always a matter of preference and individualised conceptuality, but I disagree with the idea of not using alignment for anything! True, make them as vague or strict as you see fit, but disposing of them seems to me more of an antithesis tactic than truly an enhancement... Especially with all those divination-masking/blurring/barring things being around, not to mention you actually allow your players to take alignment identifying spells (for a bard or sorcerer, this is pure catastrophe, though I am sure it would lead to interesting role-playing situations with characters who prepare spells: "You know, you realise your spell is flawed. It seems that the legends of spells that can reach out and see through the veils that cover one's own heart were just another hoax... Oh well, so much for the zillions of money you gave for that rare scroll. [GM's evil snicker sounds in the background] :P ). I cannot make you change your mind, but I hope you DO tell your players; withholding such information is really unfair on your part...

As for vitality, I don't know... Both good and bad points, in my opinion. I am working on the construction of a health formula similar to hit points, which will be more realistic, though, having that an amount of non-lethal damage makes up for one point of lethal damage, slashing and piercing weapons that deal bleeding blows, and bludgeoning weapons that deal both lethal and a little non-lethal damage, such things... Oh well!

And, to end with my ranting, I like the fame/infamy scale concept... Heheheh!
If your players know there is no alignment and that spells based on alignment have been removed or altered, Then they dont run into these problems. While paladins may bitch that they cant detect evil giving them the ability to detect undead or outsiders automaticaly even when not concentrating usually compensates for that.

But this is house ruling stuff. On the idea of monks well Id rather see a more martial than spirital version of the monk used if a monk was added to teh mix. Using fighter feats in place of spiritual abilities.