Dulrik wrote:
However, I am still principally opposed to any alignment change that would be illegal under character creation. No non-evil deep elves. No dogmatic sprites. No selfish griffons and paladins. Etc etc. In addition to starting over at level 1, I think this should also either cost loyalty tokens and/or require admin approval due to long-running RP (AKA the same as the current process).
I like the idea of the loyalty tokens thing, but that might be in part because I have only gotten them for RP thus far, as far as I know! I agree with the same regarding the character creation system and racial alignments.
Tojishiro wrote:
To take your limitations and push them a step further, I'm adding the following to the idea:
If Player A wants to pick an alignment not supported by his current class, then that class would switch to another, in a combination that is pre-defined. For example:
- Paladin tries to be something other than principled, or Hellion something other than Aberrant? Both get switched to Merc.
- Necro tries to be something other than diabolic? Translate it as "I'm leaving this dark, necromantic past behind and from now on I'll only work more accepted means of arcana" and switch him to Sorceror.
I like this as being possible as it's not something inborn, and would make for interesting RP, interesting and common sense rp.
FinneyOwnzU wrote:
a few restrictions:
1. Elves and griffons should only be able to shift from principled -> scrupulous or scrupulous -> principled.
2. Deep-elves should only be able to move from one evil alignment to another, not from evil to selfish or good.
3. Sprites and minotaurs should not be able to change to the dogmatic alignment.
4. Paladins should not be able to shift away from principled, hellions from aberrant or necromancers from diabolic.
All but point four I am definitely with, and if it were implemented in such a way that you could move away from your class to the next most similar (nonalignment dependent or agreeable with new alignment) class, I think that would work well, but if it weren't, I'd be on board with point 4 above as well.