Page 1 of 1

Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-24
by Artex
Reading the rules today, why do we even bother having the Lawful requirement for monks? No one pays attention to it. I've heard weak responses to this such as "I follow a * up system of laws." Personally I don't care, it just seems if we have something in the rules that is useless/not being followed we should just get rid of it.

Thoughts?

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-25
by Lord Dubh
Same discussion being had about Caveliers in another forum.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-25
by Inox
Honestly, I don't think we need alignment at all. It's a silly thing from D&D that helps us not at all.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Artex
-Inox- wrote:Honestly, I don't think we need alignment at all. It's a silly thing from D&D that helps us not at all.


I agree

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Gor Strayhorn
I'd cosign removal of the requirement.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Lord Dubh
The problem is alignment is a huge part of Cavalier. How does that get resolved??

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Sir Aethilgar
Lord Dubh wrote:The problem is alignment is a huge part of Cavalier. How does that get resolved??


The requirement shouldn't be alignment; it should be style of role-play.

However, until there is some form of enforcement or penalty attached with either not playing one's alignment or not role-playing a lawful monk/cav... this is a mechanically bad rule and should be moved from 'rule' to 'suggestion'.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Inox
Sir Aethilgar wrote:
Lord Dubh wrote:The problem is alignment is a huge part of Cavalier. How does that get resolved??


The requirement shouldn't be alignment; it should be style of role-play.

However, until there is some form of enforcement or penalty attached with either not playing one's alignment or not role-playing a lawful monk/cav... this is a mechanically bad rule and should be moved from 'rule' to 'suggestion'.


I agree completely.

For Cavalier, does no one else find it odd that we have the same exact code for Good Cavaliers that we do for Evil Cavaliers? Obviously, if the code meaningfully governs conduct at all, the interpretations of the code are going to have to vary widely.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Kobalos
I'm in agreement, too. The only references I see to alignment in the cav class are that 1) they must have an alignment, and 2) their sash color is tied to their alignment and functions as their holy symbol. If all cavs must adhere to the same Code of Conduct, then "alignment" is really just roleplay, except that it limits roleplay. If you can only be good, evil, OR neutral, you have a fairly static character. What about the "good" cavalier that believes that the ends justify the means?

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Inox
Kobalos wrote:I'm in agreement, too. The only references I see to alignment in the cav class are that 1) they must have an alignment, and 2) their sash color is tied to their alignment and functions as their holy symbol. If all cavs must adhere to the same Code of Conduct, then "alignment" is really just roleplay, except that it limits roleplay. If you can only be good, evil, OR neutral, you have a fairly static character. What about the "good" cavalier that believes that the ends justify the means?


Exactly.

Also, coming at it from another angle, it's possible to play "awful good", such that your piety and rectitude actually becomes oppression. It's likewise possible to play a deeply disturbed and brutal antihero who yet often seems to serve good ends somehow ("...ein Teil von jener Kraft, die stets das Böse will, und stets das Gute schafft"). These are complexities which the ham-fisted tool of alignment does not encompass.

I also dislike the sash as a holy symbol. I've started playing a Cavalier recently, and honestly, I think the sash is a too-easy thing that lacks any RP flavor. A Cavalier, just like a Cleric, should have to wear an actual symbol of their god, and that holy symbol should be the material component.

As far as the Code, alignment and the rest, why not just replace it with a blurb to the effect of "Those playing Cavaliers are held to a higher standard of garb and roleplay, and are expected to lead by example." That seems to put it out there a lot more than "War is the flowering of Chivalry".

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Kobalos
The same argument also applies to monks; the Lawful requirement comes from D&D, where the logic was that only Lawful people could apply the discipline required to become a monk. But in Darkon, we use the Monk class as a template, and not all Darkon Monks would consider themselves monks IC (Beserkers, Psionicists, etc.).

So yeah, amend it to remove it from Monks AND Cavaliers and I'd cosign.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-26
by Lord Valfryn
I like the exemplary play blurb. I also do not use a sash as my symbol. I wear one, but use a blood chalice as my divine symbol.

I think the "Code" should be hammered out better. I would like it to reflect how nobles are supposed interract with eachother. Those that choose not to follow it don't lose anything metagame, but this could be a good RP vehicle.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-27
by Ogre Solaris
I've actually used the lawful requirement to create the concept for my monk character, but no big deal if it's removed I suppose. The D&D alignments worked there because there could be consequences for breaking them, in Darkon we have no such consequence so alignment is meaningless.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-27
by Joybringer
Might as well join the "yes fest." As Inox points out, there are many way to play alignment or a character that don't necessarily correlate to what people think of when they say "Good" or "Evil".

When JB is clericing, he's a cleric of a chaotic good goddess of joy and happiness, but JB has twisted that to mean whatever brings HIM joy and happiness. Is he good?

Biscut is an assassin, generally considered an evil profession. But Biscut views assassination as a way to prevent the widespread misery and death that war would bring. In his mind, one death to avert many others is necessary, and that the ultimate form of diplomacy is the removal of those who would threaten others with their power. Is he evil?

In any event, as others have pointed out alignment plays a tiny, tiny role in how people actually play their character, and there's no penalty for breaking alignment. Cavaliers disdain missile weapons, but if they pick up a bow or javelin (and I've seen some do so) then nothing happens other than a few people poking fun at them. In the end, as Inox pointed out and as I reinforced, there's no way to enforce alignment without having to stop and argue about it every time someone wants to nitpick.

Excellent suggestion on an actual holy symbol for cavs, Inox, it would add much more flavor to the game. Flavor that a sash of any color could never produce.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-27
by Sir Aethilgar
Joybringer wrote:Excellent suggestion on an actual holy symbol for cavs, Inox, it would add much more flavor to the game. Flavor that a sash of any color could never produce.


Cavs used to be required to wear crosses... which was changed to sashes (which are not unique to the field, anybody may wear a sash as part of their garb)... could just as easily be any symbol.

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-11-28
by HRH Malkin
I was on the other side of this argument until recently, but now I feel that alignments just don't work and there's no teeth in the rules for not playing your character in conjucntion with the color of your sash so what's the point of forcing people to wear these colors?

That said, I agree with holy symbol... if we MUST have a trinket to denote the class (I'm not really sure that we must).

This is my take on a Cavallier:
Basically Cavaliers should be an example of extremity... good/evil whatever the case... Cavaliers are obsessive and unrelenting... in short... zealous.

When looking at the actions of any cavalier you know, you should understand where the term "cavalier attitude" came from.

They fight face to face because they've trained to be better warriors and their gods allow them no fear of combat. They disdain the use of missle weapons because missles inhibit their personal honor. Looking their enemy in the eye, as they dispatch them, is what honor in combat is all about (whether you wanted to kill them or not is not the point... the point is you did it with honor, face to face). That's not to say that a Cav won't take some less than honroable opportunities when absolutely necessary, but they make best attempts to live by some combative code.

We are holy-warrior-tanks and if Darkon were a dice game, Cavaliers would give everyone (fighting close to them) a morale bonus. As such I feel it is my job as a cavalier to bolster the confidence of those who fight on my side and to show no fear in combat. OOC: I know I am playing my class correctly when I hop in on a side and hear, "I feel better now we have Malkin". That's exactly the kind of feeling a Cavalier should instill in his/her allies. As I approach my forces in combat I always tell my line "I am with you now, don't back away!" I always make attempts to step in front of the fight to show all those who are with me not to fear and to watch those against form their lines accordingly. If we march into war I am always in the front... and I try to wear plate... even on stupid hot days (although it is dumb to do this, so <disclaimer> I'm not saying anyone has to this... just that I do)!

This is what I feel a cavalier is and how I try to play it. Beyond that... black sash, white sash... does it really matter?

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2012-12-02
by Artex
I would like to make this a formal Proposal. How do I bring this to Senate?

Re: Removing Alignment requirement from Monks

Posted: 2013-01-24
by Magistrate
to bring it to senate you must have the exact wording you wish to change and all other wording in the rulebook that must be ammended to fit your new idea of how the rule should be then you should get 2 different cosigners then it will be moved to the section in the forums where it will be brought up and voted on in senate - I hope that helps