Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
Lawful Neutral, not Legal Neutral 
29th-Jul-2009 01:12 pm
MC Frontalot - Nerdcore Rising
In addition to the game I'm going to be running which I posted about a few days ago, I'm going to be playing in a new game soon. My plan is to play a rogue with the Ascetic Rogue feat so he can multiclass monk. I want him to have the abilities of a monk, but he's not going to be an actual monastery monk. I view him more as a rogue who prefers to fight hand to hand (and is good at it). I don't want to play lawful good, and lawful evil is not an option for this game (even if it was it's my least favorite alignment and I probably wouldn't play it). So to meet the alignment restriction and be something I want to play, he needs to be Lawful Neutral.

I don't usually play lawful characters. I also usually come up with a character concept first, then think of how to build it, this time I went the other way around. The concept I came up with is that he's a member of a mafia type criminal organization. They have a strict code of conduct, but they're engaged in illegal activities. I think that fits the spirit of the intended alignment requirements without forcing me to play a cleric of St. Cuthbert who wants to put everyone in jail for spitting in the street.

I'm planning on putting together his code of conduct and will probably base it on the mafia's ten commandments as posted on wikipedia.

So what do you all think? Think this is a fair way to play a Lawful Neutral character? Or do you think I'm trying to skirt the rules so I can play a criminal monk?
30th-Jul-2009 04:13 am (UTC)
A non-barbaric barbarian, and an unmonklike monk? If you don't want to play a barbarian, then don't play a barbarian. If you don't play a monk, then don't play a monk. Class name absolutely enforces a character type. Wizards and sorcerers cast arcane spells. Barbarians are barbaric, and monks are monklike. The verisilimitude of a monk acting like a monk is what makes the class work. The verisilimitude of a barbarian acting like a babarian is what makes the class work.

Edited at 2009-07-30 04:14 am (UTC)
30th-Jul-2009 04:34 am (UTC)
Absolutely not in my D&D my friend. Luckily, we don't have to play in each other's games :)
30th-Jul-2009 05:04 am (UTC)
wow. really? why? if you want to play a ruffian who grew up on the street, who never learned to read, who's naturally gifted at fighting but was never formally trained in combat or shown how to wear heavy armor, a character with a rough and ready wild fighting style, why wouldn't you use the barbarian class? if you wanted to play that but it didn't make sense for the character to have the survival skill, and i was dming, i'd let you swap out knowledge local for survival.

if you want to play a gifted engineer with a knack for figuring out strange devices and an interest in ancient lore, why wouldn't you play a rogue with lots of ranks in disable device, open locks, and decipher script?

like someone else said, "rogue" doesn't need to mean "thief".

why would you tie yourself or your game down by forcing every monk to report to a monastery or every barbarian to act just like conan or every wizard to wear a pointy hat and have a beard down to his knees, or every paladin to be blonde, blue eyed and lame? if you want to play a game like that, why wouldn't you just play video games? or 4E? (heh-heh...)

31st-Jul-2009 03:25 am (UTC)
Naw, dude, 4E has tiefling paladins!

(Incidentally, now I know how my "2nd Ed ForEvAr" friend felt when dwarves were allowed to be mages in 3E...eurgh, tiefling paladins. Eurgh, tiefling/asimar/draconic as core races.) :-D

Also, for the lady wizards out there, I believe the "Silverbeard" paladin spell is just the ticket! You can cast it from a scroll if you have ranks in Use Magic Device...or you can just use Limited Wish.
31st-Jul-2009 03:29 am (UTC)
i thought 3e was a huge improvement over 2e and was really amped up to like 4e but i was totally disappointed. i just can't see wanting to play it ever. there are aspects of it that i like, things they streamlined that i think were good ideas. but it's not the same game and they stripped away too much. imho.
31st-Jul-2009 03:49 am (UTC)
I never played 2e, though I have some old equipment from it (the Player's Pack! Woooo!). I've played one 4e game and was just not impressed. Not enough customization, maybe? I dunno, maybe not that. Just...something was lacking.
31st-Jul-2009 02:27 pm (UTC)
This is a bit off topic, but if 4e seemed limited back when it came out, you might want to take a look now (or at least next March when PHB3 comes out). The game has expanded really fast, so that you have a ton more choices now. It's like the difference between playing a Fighter with only the PHB feats, and playing a Fighter with every other book (except that Fighters are awesome). PHB3 is also breaking the mold on a lot of classes and options, keeping them inline and fitting with the game but using varied mechanics and ideas and stuff.

Character building was a pretty lame exercise for 4e when it first came out (in part because the complexity was moved from choices in character creation to choices in character play, but that was hard to see unless you had a decent adventure to get those choices), but it's gotten vastly more interesting recently. The system still has it's multitude of flaws (Skill Challenges, etc), but may be worth taking another look if you're interested in trying something new :)
31st-Jul-2009 02:33 pm (UTC)
i have the books, and my group has played on occasion. i find it much easier as far as game play, especially for the dm. there are quite a few things about it i don't care for. but i'll certainly take a look at the new books and probably will end up playing it again. i feel like an old fuddy duddy but i still prefer 3.5 and feel like i probably always will. unless 5.0 goes old school.

Edited at 2009-07-31 02:34 pm (UTC)
2nd-Aug-2009 08:34 pm (UTC)
Well, Magic 2010 is kickin' it old school these days, so maybe D&D will follow.

(And if they come out with a new D&D edition every year I will cry.) (Although WotC doesn't care about me anyway, since I don't plan to buy their new books...)
30th-Jul-2009 05:11 am (UTC) - it's possible i'm just being cranky because it's late
and another thing, dammit i feel like a troll saying this... but dammit i'm gonna do it anyway.

if you like throwing the big words around, learn to spell them. it's "verisimilitude". do you even know what it means?

it means "having the quality of seeming or feeling realistic".

i don't see why the type of urban barbarian i described in my other comment seems any more or less realistic than another boring conan clone.

and hell, it's a fantasy role playing game. i defy you to explain why your arcane spellcaster who learns his spells from ancient tomes of forgotten lore is more realistic than Larry the Magic Halfling who learns his spells by solving the Daily Jumble on the comics page of the Waterdeep Free Press.

31st-Jul-2009 03:15 am (UTC)
Here kid, have a mindfuck.


This page was loaded Mar 18th 2019, 1:42 pm GMT.