Sacred Cows?

[SneeR]

We have all seen something in D&D that makes no sense but is there because it has always been there. These sacred cows are often said to be in need of a good slaughtering, but what do you think? Are there good sacred cows?

What sacred cows are there?

We can start with elves are immune to sleep. Druids are fine wearing treated dead animal, but  shudder beneath refined chunks of Mother Earth (and let's not forget that they get no penalty for wielding anything, even plasma rifles!).

Know any? Know why they are there?

[SolEiji]

"Monks are lawful."  I hate this so much.  Also, "barbarian/bards are nonlawful" and, really, most alignments.  Paladin has an excuse, but that one should be "pick an alignment and stick with it" rather than "you must be alignment X to enter".  Thats for PrCs, not base classes.

Then again, paladin really fits best as a PrC in the first place IMO.

[zook1shoe]

Hathor

[SneeR]

Hathor

What is that?

[Jackinthegreen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

That's Hathor.  Zook, you're a smartass.    lol

[zook1shoe]

 

Assassins must be evil and stay evil.
Torture is evil, even than many spells do that and a not considered evil, even a couple good.
Gelatinous cubes look like light blue jello cubes.
Samurai are powerful in 3.5.
Devils are politicians.
Pelor is Neutral Good.

[SolEiji]

Hathor

Lol, I got it.

Samurai are powerful in 3.5.

Lol wut?

Oh, another one.  Str bonuses are super important, so half-orc is totally balanced.
You can't play monster characters effectively.
Fighters don't get nice things, and premutations of it.
Playing evil is wrong, evil versions of things are therefore inferior.

[zook1shoe]

Well samurai are supposed to be amazing.... But CW somehow ate the OA samurai and crapped out the new one

[RedWarlock]

Those last few seem more like mechanical ideas that don't work, rather than sacred cows. AFAIK, sacred cows tend to be concepts which are in the rules arbitrarily, held over due to tradition rather than reasons of mechanical balance or legitimate flavor.

On the monk, mentioned above, I don't think it's a sacred cow for them to need to be lawful. It's reflecting the traditions of eastern philosophy that seek zen-like states of calm and an ordered mind. Exceptions can exist (either as variants, PrCs, or feats), but the supernatural abilities of the monk are reflecting a state closer to enlightenment. (That's pretty much how I see the outsider stuff at level 20, full true enlightenment to Nirvana in the buddhist sense.) So when you leave the path of enlightenment, going away from the lawful ethos or taking levels in another class, you're forsaking that path as an option, and need to reform your ways to re-join the path.

[veekie]

It's reflecting the traditions of eastern philosophy that seek zen-like states of calm and an ordered mind.

Misperception regarding the ordered mind thing. Its to be unfettered by worldly concerns, being one with the universe and not being driven by desires. Closer to Neutral than any particular alignment.

[oslecamo]

It's reflecting the traditions of eastern philosophy that seek zen-like states of calm and an ordered mind.

Misperception regarding the ordered mind thing. Its to be unfettered by worldly concerns, being one with the universe and not being driven by desires. Closer to Neutral than any particular alignment.

On the contrary, that's pretty much the definition of lawful. Choosing a certain set of rules and sticking to it regardless of whatever else happens.

A neutral person would certainly be driven by desires now and then and care somewhat about what happens around them. It's the dude that always say no to material vices and conforts that can call himself lawful.

[veekie]

^^
Actually, given that the way of life espoused by the same philosophy calls for moderation in all things, would not be particularly good at being lawful. Heck, if adherence to a code or philosophy is lawful, all clerics would be.

Therefore, another sacred cow: Exclusivity of alignment.
Alignment being taken as the end-all definition of a being's motivations and actions. Its schizophrenic in that any given being could adhere to a number of possible alignments in its beliefs. Consider the typical adventurer's approach of applying violence as the primary solution to their problems, this is not Good(except where they are stopping capital E Evil), and sometimes considered evil. Does intent matter more, or does the means and actions matter more?

It is simpler when dealing with Always <alignment> types, since thats a flag for acceptable targets or support, as it was in earlier editions, but outside of that simple function it rather breaks down.

[oslecamo]

^^
Actually, given that the way of life espoused by the same philosophy calls for moderation in all things, would not be particularly good at being lawful. Heck, if adherence to a code or philosophy is lawful, all clerics would be.

It's how stricly you apply to a code that makes you lawful. Someone chaotic may play for the rules for a moment, but they'll break them as soon as they feel like it.

For example Lolth clerics are pretty much taught to do whatever they please. Alliances, backstabbing, war, bloodshed, parties, sacrifices, all of the previous at the same time. pretty much anything goes

Therefore, another sacred cow: Exclusivity of alignment.
Alignment being taken as the end-all definition of a being's motivations and actions. Its schizophrenic in that any given being could adhere to a number of possible alignments in its beliefs. Consider the typical adventurer's approach of applying violence as the primary solution to their problems, this is not Good(except where they are stopping capital E Evil), and sometimes considered evil. Does intent matter more, or does the means and actions matter more?

It is simpler when dealing with Always <alignment> types, since thats a flag for acceptable targets or support, as it was in earlier editions, but outside of that simple function it rather breaks down.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". That's no D&D sacred cow, but something that has been along since the dawn of history. Actions speak much louder than intentions.

Modern courts don't care if you claim your god told you to barbecue and eat those human babies alive. They'll still arrest you.

Also good uses violence all the time. The key diference is, like you pointed out, when they're using to prevent evil. If that implies killing the fanatic orcs that won't stop their attacks untill either you or them are dead, so be it. And the D&D multiverse has no lack of evil threats for good characters to deal with.

[veekie]

Its not the existence of the code thats a sacred cow, its the rigidity of it. Dozens of ways exist to accidentally become evil, or effects arbitrarily marked as evil, or evil being icky, etc. Does intent matter more or does the means, etc etc.

[oslecamo]

Again, if you run over a person that didn't do anything wrong on the street and he/she dies, you'll be deemed guilty of killing the person regardless of you being drunk, sleepy or wanting to actualy run over the person, and will receive punishment.

Now I admit that if in the court you don't show any sign of regret and claim you would do it again, that'll probably give you an harsher sentence, but even then it was your action of provoking the court that caused it and threatening to run over more persons, not your intention.

That's why our parents seek to teach us all kind of lessons since we're little and enforce them. It's quite easy to fall to evil ways whitout any intention on it.

Seriously, whole lifes have been ruined for a single miscalculated act.

[Bozwevial]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think alignment should be completely scrapped.

[Dilvish]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think alignment should be completely scrapped.

Even then, I doubt it would put a stop to decades of alignment discussions.

[SneeR]

I will definitely concede that chaos approximately equally evil is a sacred cow. Or the converse, that law somehow equals good. These seem to be assumptions that have no internal consistency.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

Druids. I never understood why druids existed, when standard clerics cover every other religious-priest niche. This goes back to 2nd edition and wondering why they weren't a priest kit instead, and into 3rd edition and wondering why they weren't a PrC instead.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think alignment should be completely scrapped.

Even then, I doubt it would put a stop to decades of alignment discussions arguments.

ftfy