Why did Conan's alignment change later in life?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why did Conan's alignment change later in life?
Why did Conan's alignment change later in life?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
People change.
An alignment change in that era of AD&D impossible without magic or madness, so give a better answer.
>An alignment change in that era of AD&D impossible without magic or madness
The Hyborian Age is not an AD&D setting. What was posted is an attempt to model Conan at varying stages in his life using rules he was not written to be compliant with. It should not be surprising that there are compatibility issues.
Those are AD&D stats so that progression needs to follow AD&D rules. Give a better answer.
>God's direct influence
Why is he a Fighter/Thief instead of a Cleric or Paladin?
Reread 1E, frend. You're likely thinking 2E. The only way the rules allow for changing alingment is through madness effects or cursed items tha forcibly change your alignment. There is not by the book support for natural change over time and when it does cite DM fiat as an option, it still says the character goes mad for a time.
Reread AD&D1E, frend. WotC's hogslop does not retroactively change AD&D1E.
>Why is he a Fighter/Thief instead of a Cleric or Paladin?
I didn't realize that literally only Clerics and Paladins were able to interact with, believe in, follow, or be blessed by gods. Makes it very strange that a lot of official D&D settings have deities that are patron deities of thieves, wizards, and fighters.
Regular exposure to Crom having a good chuckle is know to induce alignment shifting madness.
Idiot. Read the books.
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
Wrong. Alignment has always been descriptive, not preescriptive, and consequently has always been able to be changed.
So is losing levels in that era of AD&D without magic or madess, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with that aspect.
The frick are you talking about dude. 1E DMG page 24:
>If a professed lawful evil character is consistently seeking to be helpful and is respecting the lesser creatures, he or she is certainly tending towards good, while if he or she ignores regulations and consistent behavior the trend is towards chaotic alignment. Such drift should be noted by you, and when it takes the individual into a new alignment area, you should then inform the player that his or her character has changed alignment.
And it doesn't say they go mad, it says they lose a level of experience.
Alignment changed can happen. It results in loss of levels and certain powers, such as alignment language, even whole classes or class levels, such as Cleric or Paladin.
Alignments were primordial forces greater than the gods, and were prescriptive. Gods CANNOT change alignment. If they tried they'd just disappear. Angels, if they did, went the total opposite, say from LG to LE, sometimes CE, and burned as they fell. There's one specifically named Devil, K'rand Vahlix, that turned LG.
What makes mortals unique is that they can. They shouldn't, it's a major change that results in loss, as described above, but also gain.
Now if you're talking what they MEAN, that's a different thing. In their first published version, the first printing, maybe the first two or three printings, alignments had a different meaning from later publishings. Gygax changed his mind about what they mean. Not to mention 2e after he left, and the shit WotC pulled with 3.x (which has a lot more issues than just alignment), 4e had just six (Lawful-Good-Neutral-Unaligned-Evil-Chaotic), and in 5e they don't matter. I don't think alignment descriptions are even found anywhere in 5e, and post Tasha they started removing them.
I like alignments. They make for interesting RP opportunities, and are mechanically relevant. If they're just there as descriptors they don't matter.
> and in 5e they don't matter. I don't think alignment descriptions are even found anywhere in 5e, and post Tasha they started removing them.
They don’t matter *much*, but alignment mattering does turn up every now and then. From the core rulebooks you’ve got stuff like the Talisman of Pure Good, the Book of Vile Darkness, or a rakshasa being vulnerable (take double damage) to magical piercing damage from weapons wielded by good creatures. Some adventures also have traps or locations where alignment matters, especially Curse of Strahd.
WotC briefly flirted with not putting alignment in generic monster stat locks, but only for like one or two published adventures (I think just Candlekeep Mysteries). Even then specific npcs would get alignments. Since CM, though, they’ve gone back to putting alignments in generic monster statblocks but now put “typically” in front of it, so as to make it official that, for example, just because orcs are typically chaotic evil doesn’t mean that there aren’t lawful good orcs in the world.
Monsters being "always" an alignment is basically their own fault anyway. They moved away from it, then moved right back, then made a big deal about how they're stopping all racism by moving away from it again.
>why does this happen?
>because of this thing people does
>No, explain it in autistic, measurable terms!
Buddy I can explain to you why but no matter how hard I try, I cannot teach a machine to feel emotions with words alone.
People change, autismo.
Not enough under how AD&D handled alignment.
There are no game rules in AD&D for divine intervention or influence that isn't wholly dependant on class and level.
>There are no game rules in AD&D for divine intervention or influence that isn't wholly dependant on class and level.
There also aren't game rules for taking a shit but characters do it. Boccob, for example, is EXPLICITLY a patron to many wizards, despite not caring if he's worshiped, and Zuokon is incredibly involved with Monks and Psionicists.
Acting like only Paladins and Clerics can be religious or only they can receive direct help from a deity is fricking stupid. Especially because the majority of the clergy for any given deity won't be either of them.
There's specifically a section for bolts of lightning from the DM to annoying player's characters.
you keep saying this but do not present any evidence to back it up. you sir, are a collossal clueless homosexual born after y2k was a thing
>alignment change is impossible, in AD&D. it doesn't matter if the person starts acting completely differently and changes their entire life. nothing changes
Damn this game is even more dogshit than I thought.
Because alignment is moronic and always has been moronic, next question.
It's a shit mechanic from a bygone era.
>18 INT
"Honest rolls" homosexuals when they see that most protagonists in the stories they want to emulate have fricking high as shit stats in most areas
>the stories they want to emulate
emulate the style and tone and certain spirit of adventure, not be the protagonist, copy the storyline itself, or be entitled to the protagonist's powers and successes
I am more interested in his stat gains. I don't recall physical stat gains being in AD&D 1e or 2e rules. I recall mental stat gains paired with physical stat losses that were tied to advanced age. Also what is the parenthetical bit on his Intelligence score, his max?