Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Drew
« on: December 27, 2005, 08:31:00 PM »

The holy liberator is based on a 3e prestige class.  It is not a Paladin, technically speaking, though fallen paladins can become Holy Liberators if they meet the other requirements.  They even get their Paladin goodies back after aquiring the prestige class.
Posted by: Andyr
« on: November 07, 2005, 05:45:11 PM »

It's Kish's Oversight mod from G3, yeah.
Posted by: Yet Another Guest!
« on: November 06, 2005, 03:31:21 PM »

Something to note: in one of the other BG mods there's a Paladin kit called the Holy Liberator. I believe it's based off a Paladin of Freedom from Unearthed Arcana; it's a Chaotic Good Paladin dedicated to the causes of liberty and free thought and whatnot. Bonuses and immunities against compulsion instead of fear, and his code involves respecting personal liberty as well as upholding the cause of good.

So yes, it can happen.
Posted by: Insert Name Here
« on: October 13, 2005, 08:22:25 PM »

Disclaimer: The following post contains some ramblings and musings that may not be entirely focused or relevant.

While I generally agree with "guest's" assessment of the Lawful-Chaotic alignment axis, I disagree on one note. While *most* chaotic characters may lack the self-discipline or willpower, I don't think it's a "chaotic implies unfocused willy-nilly mentality." While cases like the Xaoisects (sp?) in PST certainly fall under that category, the way you're defining "Chaotic" doesn't necessitate a lack of discipline.

While it's generally agreed that a disciplined, law-abiding character is more lawful than an undisciplined, individualistic opportunist, being generally "lawful" essentially means the character displays significantly more lawful characteristics than chaotic ones, and vice versa. That being the case, it makes some sense that a generally chaotic character can possess the mental discipline necessary to follow the monk's path. However, since the traits of a monk favor law to chaos, you're likely to see few neutral monks and fewer chaotic ones. To simplify things and cover perhaps 95% of all monks, you could penalize unlawful ones.

Paladins, on the other hand, relying on the favor of a deity, are likely more restricted than monks (or barbarians, or whatever) in terms of alignment. Lawful Good gods are likely to look for a very strict set of traits in their chosen warriors, so paladins as a class will be made up of "the lawful of the lawful," so to speak.

Ultimately, I can definitely see the possibility for an argument in favor of a neutral (or *possibly* chaotic) monk. Neutral (*maybe* lawful) barbarians may also be justified. On the other hand, I think you'd be awfully hard-pressed (i.e. it's nigh-impossible) to come up with an explanation for a neutral (or worse, chaotic) paladin. That I can't come up with good examples simply means I'm not sufficiently creative.
Posted by: guest
« on: October 13, 2005, 12:59:09 PM »

The point of Law vs. Chaos is not about following society's laws. It's about willingly following any rules.

The mafia is a "lawful" organisation because it's members follow their own rules of honor. Even if their daily work is breaking society's laws. So a thief CAN be lawful. In fact, a chaotic thief WILL have problems with the rules of a thieves guild.

A Paladin needs to be Lawful Good, because only lawful good gods feel such a responsibility to mortal beings of the same alignment that they are willing to share their power. Each paladin is a "chosen" of a Lawful Good diety, and when he no longer is lawful good, his link to the diety breaks.

A monk needs to be lawful, because their exampels are budhistic warrior-monks like the shao-lin, the dedication, discipline and willpower necessary to train body and mind are the virtues of Order.

Virtues of Chaos on the other hand are curiousity, tolerance, creativity, freedom, characters that feel strongly aligned to these virtues don't feel good in a lawful organisation and never will have the self-discipline to train body and mind like a monk or following society's rules.

Posted by: Borsook
« on: August 17, 2005, 03:02:11 AM »

What about a thief being a "patriotic spy"? I can envision such a character being lawful, wouldn't steal a brass button, but he steals stuff from people whom he considers enemies of his country. Anyway it may be personal preference but I believe RPG shouldn't be so much about forcing, if a player has a lawful thief (or bard) he should "get into character" and refrain from stealing. If the player doesn't want to roleplay properly that's his business, why force him with penalties? This IMO undermines the very purpose of RPG.
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: August 17, 2005, 02:06:57 AM »

Why? If they're lawful that should mean they're less likely to steal, not that they're less skillful at it.
Because simply greying out the Thieving button would render them totally unable to open doors, which is of course one of the major reasons to keep a Thief in the party. True, a Lawful Thief would simply choose not to rob people, but that's impossible to enforce, whereas a penalty is quite feasible.
I once designed a recruitable Lawful Good Bounty Hunter; he works for the city guard in tracking down & apprehending people, and he wears an undroppable Amulet that (among other things) sets his Pick Pockets score to 0 and renders him immune to all changes to Pick Pockets score.
Posted by: Borsook
« on: August 15, 2005, 02:19:37 PM »

A Thief that becomes Lawful should take a major penalty to his Pick Pockets score, and smaller one to his Open Locks score. Bards that become Lawful should have their Pick Pockets similarly penalized.
Why? If they're lawful that should mean they're less likely to steal, not that they're less skillful at it. If I suddenly deceide that driving is bad I'll still know how to drive, I may lose some skill at it cause of the lack of practise but on the other hand I'll lose it cause of the lack of practise even when I think that driving is the very essence of my existence.
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: August 15, 2005, 02:07:09 PM »

A Thief that becomes Lawful should take a major penalty to his Pick Pockets score, and smaller one to his Open Locks score. Bards that become Lawful should have their Pick Pockets similarly penalized. Berserkers and especially Barbarians should have a couple of their daily Rages subtracted while they are Lawful.

Monks that become Chaotic could temporarily lose their Stunning Blow and Quivering Palm abilities due to their lack of discipline, and/or take a Magic Resistance penalty.

Personally, I feel Druids should be allowed to roam the Good/Evil axis: Compare Jaheira with Faldorn, with Cernd in the middle. There should be changes, but not really penalties, associated with this shift: A Druid that becomes good could have her spell selections altered so that she loses a few offensive spells, but gains some protective spells from the Cleric and/or Wizard spheres to compensate. A Druid that turns Evil would experience the opposite effect. BUT. A Druid that shifts to Lawful or Chaotic is actually paying more attention to civil laws than nature's laws, and should take a WIS penalty as a result.
Posted by: Borsook
« on: August 15, 2005, 06:01:51 AM »

We got a misunderstanding here, as far as I know Paladin falling is tied to Virtue loss, which can happen if he does something evil but also un-lawful. The same can be done with monks. I just don't see why changing his aligment is that important, especially because paladin can fall after disgracing himself by commitment of a unlawful action, it doesn't mean he ceased to believe in law altogether. If he continues on that path his aligment might change to chaotic, but it doesn't change a thing, he was fallen long before that change occurs.
Posted by: Salk
« on: August 15, 2005, 05:06:38 AM »

Borsook,

the Thief-thing is a non problem. As I mentioned, in BG2, thieves can be of any alignement. You seem you don't want to understand though that IF Paladins and Monks MUST also be of Lawful alignment, there is a reason.

A Paladin should fall not only for not pursuing Good but also for not atteining to the strict rules of the society he lives in. There is a big difference between a chaotic good and a lawful good. Each of the nine different alignments have their own ethical meaning.

It might be sometimes a little subtle. We can even decide (like most seem to be doing) to ignore it because it wouldn't affect so much a computer game. But I still care for it. The immediate effects on some classes are direct and undeniable. A Bard that shifts to a Lawful alignment should be penalized by not being able to use his/her characteristics: he can sing...But there would not be any positive effects (everybody can sing). Same thing for the Monks...Losing their alignment should not make them "fallen" but should not let them retain the characteristics of a Monk (no longer movement speed bonus, no longer AC bonus, and so on...)...They would still be Bards and Monks technically speaking but they should lose the privilages of their unique classes.

How to implement these "modified" classes should be object of discussion when and if some such project could ever even start but not now. Enough to say that I personally miss the presence of the Law/Chaos axis as much as I would miss the presence of the Good/Evil axis.

Perhaps it's just me and few others...But knowing a little SimDing0, I'd think such thought crossed his mind as well...

Cheers!
Posted by: Borsook
« on: August 15, 2005, 03:28:47 AM »

I'm not saying movement along Chaotic/lawful is unimportant in a RPG, but it seems pretty unimportant to me in baldur's gate. OK, we could add losing abilities for a druid, cause like in case of Cleric/paladin they're "granted" by the divine. But the rest... if a bard become lawful he loses the ability to sing? Why? Or a thief to steal?
Posted by: Salk
« on: August 15, 2005, 02:56:54 AM »

Borsook,

Nope, it's not just a matter of "Look! My thief is now no longer Chaotic...". Leave thieves alone for a moment.

Monks and Paladins should lose their class privileges by abandoning a Lawful alignment and so should Druids (True Neutral) and Bards (partly Neutral) do if they don't comply to their own ethos.

Personally I have always considered the Law/Chaos axis as important as the Good/Evil one. In RPG (around a table) which I joined or mastered (too long) time ago, such aspect was nowhere as undestimated as it is on CRPG and this is a shame.

I believe that implementing Law/Chaos in Virtue would be a greater step ahead than it was with the original Virtue system applied to Good and Evil beause while the latter was (badly) present already in Baldur's Gate, the former had never even been considered...
Posted by: Borsook
« on: August 15, 2005, 02:10:10 AM »

But should the lawful/chaotic shift be implemented the only consequence would be "look my thief is lawful now". It wouldn't change a thing gameplay wise. One might consider adding "falling" to other classes (like druid - they should try to keep the balance, so too much of  chaos/law is not desired) but still I do not see much point to it. I'd say I'd be better use of time and resources to do Virtue for tutu instead.
Posted by: Salk
« on: August 15, 2005, 12:23:32 AM »

I actually didn't mean to focus on the class drop/penalties. It was more like an ethical choice for implementing a Law/Chaos axis to mirror the presence of the Good/Evil axis. The sphere is now just an half sphere. The chance of shifting along the Law/Chaos axis should reflect the game's evolution and the player's choices.

However, let's concentrate on those classes that require to stick to a precise Law/Chaos alignment: Monks must be Lawful, Paladins must be Lawful, Druids must be Neutral, Bards cant be Lawful.

I think these are enough reasons to believe the introduction of a Law/Chaos axis would be needed. Logically the alignment "hits" should be halved for Neutral characters.

And one more thing: this is just academic because Thieves in BG2 can (strangely enough, according to me) be of any alignment but I disagree with Sim when it comes to his concern about them.

You must work by "subtraction". As reference, do not think about what of chaotic/illegal can a Thief do in the game, but rather, think of what of Legal a Thief is doing. In short: let's keep what is Lawful as reference. What goes openly against this, should be seen as a Chaotic action (subtraction).

There will be situations when a chaotic character would be supposed to act according to his instincts and ethic: if, in such situations, he/she would act "lawfully", then I believe an axis shift would be in order.

Of course we would need to find such situations and examine all the possible implications and I know it might be not so easy. But this shouldn't mean that a Law/Chaos axis isn't needed. I still believe that would improve metagaming a lot...