Monk alignment change

[Nookie]

Ok so in pathfinder (And 3.5 in general as i recall) if a monk changes from a lawful alignment they can never again gain levels as a monk. Recently a monk character got a headband of oposite alignment stuck on her and became chaotic evil. Now assuming the players are capable of finding the ring of wishs that can reverse curse Would you allow tha character to once again gain monk levels?

Also What good reason is there for a monk to not gain monk leves again once they do go back to an acceptble level of lawulness?

 

[carmachu]

I cant see why not, it was an involuntary change of alignment.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

A wish seems ridiculously too much to require for such a minor "transgression." At worst, an atonement spell that's free since it was an unwilling change (right?).

I'd just let her keep advancing in monk once her alignment was corrected. And if a DM tricked/coerced me into putting on that headband, and then informed me I couldn't advance in my class ever again until I sought out a wish spell, I'd kindly tell him to go himself.

And since when did you need a wish to remove a cursed item? Did PF remove the Remove Curse spell? Break Enchantment?

 

[freyar]

A wish seems ridiculously too much to require for such a minor "transgression." At worst, an atonement spell that's free since it was an unwilling change (right?).

I'd just let her keep advancing in monk once her alignment was corrected. And if a DM tricked/coerced me into putting on that headband, and then informed me I couldn't advance in my class ever again until I sought out a wish spell, I'd kindly tell him to go himself.

And since when did you need a wish to remove a cursed item? Did PF remove the Remove Curse spell? Break Enchantment?

Even in 3.5, you could take the helm off ok, but you're alignment has already been changed. The magic item description specifically requires wish or miracle to reverse the alignment switch (and later atonement if necessary).

 

[collin]

The whole "only lawful alignment" thing for monks never made sense to me, especially in the context of how the broader definition of an unarmed fighter can be played in DnD. I always thought it should have been "no chaotic alignment". I think neutrally aligned monks make complete sense to me.

 

[delericho]

Ok so in pathfinder (And 3.5 in general as i recall) if a monk changes from a lawful alignment they can never again gain levels as a monk.

Strictly speaking, that's not what it says. What the book actually says is, "A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities." This says nothing about whether the character can advance again if the he returns to a lawful alignment. This is probably a place where the 4e-advice of "say yes" is a good idea.

In 3.5 (but not Pathfinder), a monk who takes a level in any non-monk class cannot ever gain levels as a monk again, but that's a slightly different rule.

I basically agree with StreamOfTheSky - once the alignment was corrected, I would expect to be able to advance again as a monk, especially if the alignment change was involuntary.

 

[pawsplay]

Strictly speaking, that's not what it says. What the book actually says is, "A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities." This says nothing about whether the character can advance again if the he returns to a lawful alignment.

Correct, as I read it. A monk who moves to a state of lawfulness is ineligible at that time to continue to advance as a monk. If they were ineligible, the sentence would read, "A monk who has become..." and even then it would be ambiguous. Become means, naturally enough, "to come to be," not "has ever been."

EDIT: And properly, Zen monks would tend to be Neutral, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Neutral.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't know- most monastic traditions- Eastern or Western- would have a strong "lawful" aspect to them...even Zen.

SRD
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

<snip>

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Compared to:

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txo/zenbuddh.htm
The subsequent history of Ch'an in China was mixed. The sect suffered from the great persecution of Buddhism in 845. It recovered better than many Buddhist schools, however, partly because, in contrast to other monastic communities, Ch'an monks engaged in physical labor, which made them less dependent on state and lay support. During the Sung dynasty (960 - 1279), Ch'an again prospered and was a leading influence on the development of Chinese art and neo - Confucian culture.

It was during this period that Ch'an was first established in Japan. Within 30 years of each other, two Japanese monks, Eisai (1141 - 1215) and Dogen (1200 - 53), went to China, where they trained respectively in the Lin - chi (Japanese, Rinzai) and Ts'ao - tung (Japanese, Soto) schools of Ch'an. These they then introduced into Japan. Rinzai emphasizes the use of Koans, mental stumbling blocks or riddles that the meditator must solve to the satisfaction of his master. Soto lays more stress on seated meditation without conscious striving for a goal (zazen). Both schools fostered good relations with the shoguns and became closely associated with the Japanese military class. Rinzai in particular was highly influential during the Ashikaga period (1338 - 1573), when Zen played an important role in propagating neo - Confucianism and infusing its own unique spirit into Japanese art and culture.

The heart of Zen monasticism is the practice of meditation; it is this feature that has been most popular in Zen's spread to the West. Zen meditation highlights the experience of enlightenment, or satori (Chinese: wu), and the possibility of attaining it in this life. The strict training of Zen monks, the daily physical chores, the constant wrestling with koans, the long hours of sitting in meditation, and the special intensive periods of practice (sesshin) are all directed toward this end.

At the same time, enlightenment is generally thought of as being sudden. The meditator needs to be jolted awake, and the only one who can do this is his Zen master. The master - disciple relationship often involves private interviews in which the Zen trait of unconventionality sometimes comes to the fore; the master will allow no refuge in the Buddha or the sutras but demands from his disciple a direct answer to his assigned koan. Conversely, the master may goad the disciple by remaining silent or compassionately help him out, but with the constant aim of trying to cause a breakthrough from conventional to absolute truth.

(emphasis mine)

It would seem that there is a "method to their madness"- a core of order hidden within layers of chaos. To them, chaos is a tool, not an ethos. It is something that may be engendered in others, but is not intended to be internalized.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The whole "only lawful alignment" thing for monks never made sense to me, especially in the context of how the broader definition of an unarmed fighter can be played in DnD. I always thought it should have been "no chaotic alignment". I think neutrally aligned monks make complete sense to me.

I think part of the problem is conflating "monk" with "unarmed fighter." There can be all kinds of unarmed fighters- check my sig and you'll see a lot of them exist in 3.X- but only a few of them really match well with the monk.

A master of Capoiera, in some ways, more closely resembles a Bard than a Monk...and that is somewhat captured by the BattleDancer from DCv1.

And there are several martial arts styles that rely on the application of quick and precise brute force- kind of like Rage or Ki Frenzy- and such styles can be quite chaotic.

Heck- the Monk class doesn't even reflect the weapon list you might expect of the archetypal Eastern monk (to Western eyes, at least)- the Shaolin. Where are the swords? Where are the SPEARS? (I do have a HR to address that, but that's not the issue.)

So if I want a non-lawful monk, I just use another class. A barbarian for some types (like mentioned before), or Fighter for someone who is more akin to a commando...or practitioner of Pankration or Ju-Jitsu. A PsiWar or Battlesorcerer makes a fine mystical martial artist. Etc.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The whole "only lawful alignment" thing for monks never made sense to me, especially in the context of how the broader definition of an unarmed fighter can be played in DnD. I always thought it should have been "no chaotic alignment". I think neutrally aligned monks make complete sense to me.

IMO, all the standing class alignment restrictions are rather daft.

I vastly prefer Paladins to be 'any Good' and always have (Lawful only? puh-lease), Monks to be 'any' (mostly for all those different styles and philosophies, which yeah, really do exist[!]), Bards to be 'any', Barbarians to be 'any' (you don't need to be Chaotic, or even non-Lawful to 'Rage', especially if your interpretation of that ability can be even remotely flexible [which is a good thing, IMO]). . . (etc.)

Ugh. Just one of those pet peeves. The Paladin one in particular has always irked me.

But the thing to remember is that you can house-rule that stuff with the greatest of ease, with no side effects to worry about whatsoever. That's the beauty of it. So hey, I'll forgive 3e / PFRPG (et al) this, among other things.

Uh. . . /tj