Restrictions introduced to alignments outside of their place

[Tor]

It would be simplest if we could simply read the descriptions under each alignment and that was all we needed to know... but more and more with subsequent references to alignments and restrictions they impose on certain classes or abilities, I am seeing this isn't the case...

I think it might be useful to begin compiling a list of all references to alignments outside of their respective sections within main books.

These restrictions might be groupable into subcategories based on shared similarities if enough are compiled, but that's a bridge to cross later. Rather than group by alignments, since many statements refer to multiple ones at once, I think it'd probably just be good to do it by book. So to get the ball rolling...

Book of Magic p 136 good alignments (including Unprincipled) will not:
*use the 'Summon Greater Familiar' spell
*associate with supernatural evil

I find this a bit odd.. and actually contradicted by numerous examples:
*In RMB, SGF was a base spell known by Shifters. Why would good Shifters bother to (or be able to) learn a spell they could never cast? The OCC never had an alignment restriction, nor did this spell until BoM, far as I know.
*Hera is a supernatural beings and has an evil alignment, yet Athena (good as they come) and Poseidon (unprincipled, so also good) teamed up with her. Although this could've possibly been back when Hera was anarchist.
*Kaledon Arrellei (Pantheons 105) and Karid Ironspinner (Pantheons 108) and Ylliriel Silverleaf (Pantheons 109) are all Unprincipled yet they willingly team up with a supernatural being (Herbert Rowland) who has an evil alignment. They also deal with the Splugorth and demons, which is bound to bring them into association with supernatural evil.
*Siva is a supernatural god of evil alignment, yet 2 principled people (Brahma and Vishnu) willingly associate with him, as does his good (unprincipled) wife Parvati.
*Of "The Three" ruling Dweomer in Federation of Magic, 1 is Aberrent (evil) and the other 2 are good, yet they willingly associate with him.

There is no restriction I know of preventing summoners from enslaving supernatural evil via their circles, so the presence of an alignment restriction for Summoner Greater Being seems pretty ridiculous, and worth ignoring as a mistake which contradicts with numerous established canon, and was not originally part of the spell. Thoughts?

Africa/Mystic Russa : good alignments cannot practice necromancy for some reason

[drewkitty ~..~]

Some "class's" practices are "EVIL" and good chars will not take part of those EVIL deeds needed to learn such classes.

And some classes and for good only because evil chars are not chosen to be trained in them. Which is much of the reason why there are no EVIL Cosmo Knights.

This is basic 'The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil' type thing.

[Tor]

edit: fixing quote tags, thanks for notifying D

:roll:

Do you find something inherently un-good about use severed rat-hands to protect an orphanage from wolves?

Or animating wolf skeletons to scare those wolves off?

Or what about a paraplegic who learns necromancy and transfers his essence into a puppet so he can enjoy life? Or who co-operates with a techno-wizard (or is both, like that dwarf guy Inglix the Mad in Phase World Sourcebook) to make TW mind transfer devices to help everyone?

Some "class's" practices are "EVIL" and good chars will not take part of those EVIL deeds needed to learn such classes.

We're still left in the dark as to what such practices are though. Necromancy might include some unwritten "you must burn a bushel of babies" caveat before you can turn level 1, but the OCC as described actually doesn't violate any of the basic alignment guidelines as we know them.

some classes and for good only because evil chars are not chosen to be trained in them. Which is much of the reason why there are no EVIL Cosmo Knights.

Well... "Fallen Knight" is kinda short for "Fallen Cosmo Knight" and they're still... quasi-Cosmic.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Well... "Fallen Knight" is kinda short for "Fallen Cosmo Knight" and they're still... quasi-Cosmic.

A Fallen CK is not a CK, it is a "Was a CK." And typically you bring up an irrelevant example of what is being talked about.

[Tor]

I dunno... Fallen Cyber-Knights are still Cyber-Knights. Dark Guardians may not be "Light Guardians" (as we must retroactively term the originals) but are still "Guardians" per their titular portion. Fallen CosmoKs still keep their cosmic weapon too... so I see it as a relevant example of how you retain your status (even if your alignment heavily alters the impact of that status) even with an alignment change.

It's kind of like Karmic Power. You still have the power, it just doesn't do a whole lot for you when you're evil.

[drewkitty ~..~]

*Yawns*

And typically you bring up an irrelevant example of what is being talked about.

Why don't you stay on subject for once. You should know what it is...you brought it up.

[Tor]

Why don't you stay on subject for once. You should know what it is...you brought it up.

I'm simply following your line of thought regarding the 'no evil cosmo-knights' comment. I consider Fallen Cosmo Knights to still be Cosmo-Knights. They don't lose their OCC skills after all, they just stop advancing and get a penalty smacked on them.

Subjects are flexible, it's fine to follow up on others' comments. Unless yours was off topic? =/

if the concept of alignment is going to be used, then there have to be some kinds of restrictions on what a 'good' character can or can't do, and what an 'evil' character can or can't do.

Yes, and they were introduced to us in the main books when alignments were described.

I'm talking about how alignments have effectively been expanded in later books with additional restrictions on what alignments can do.

In game terms, practicing necromancy is inherently an 'evil' act.

Selfish alignments can practice it, so no, it's simply a non-good act. But since we are not told WHY there is an alignment restriction, this is interpretable as an actual change to the alignment points.

Even though it might be used for an arguably 'good' purpose, the very act of using it is evil.

If that's the case, why can a necromancer be Unprincipled? Unprincipled is the 'good' kind of selfish.

The OCC only prohibits principled/scrupulous, much like a secondary vampire. Your calling it 'evil' seems inappropriate here.

we also have a practical game to run.

Part of running a practical game is understanding alignments to know if characters are being roleplayed well.

Understanding how later games actually change alignments is important to that.

[Giant2005]

Good characters don't use Rune Weapons, not unless the Rune Weapon itself peer pressures them into it. Atlantis page 127.

[Tor]

*underlines* nice find, I notice that prior to this statement in the 2nd column, the first column also mentions 'only beings of an evil or anarchist alignment should even consider learning rune magic', which makes me wonder if in this context 'unprincipled' would also be considered 'good' in regard to those who need to be implored by the weapon to use it. Although it does say "good or unprincipled", so probably not.

So unprincipled guys can't make rune weapons, but they can use with without being implored, I figure.