# Monk alignment change



## Nookie (Sep 3, 2009)

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 (Sep 3, 2009)

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


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 3, 2009)

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 (Sep 3, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> 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 (Sep 3, 2009)

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 (Sep 3, 2009)

Nookie said:


> 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 (Sep 4, 2009)

delericho said:


> 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 (Sep 4, 2009)

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>
> ...




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.
> ...




_(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 (Sep 4, 2009)

collin said:


> 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 (Sep 4, 2009)

collin said:


> 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


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


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




You are certainly entitled to your reading, but I think what you just posted clearly showed the contrast between Law (conventionality, close-mindedness, obediance) and the ethos of Zen (unconventionality, wide-mindedness, lack of attachment). Many Zen parables tell of a teacher doing something shocking that is nonetheless aimed at generating enlightenment. Some koans are basically jokes aimed to breaking down the ego.

Here is a fun Zen story. An old monk and a young monk are travelling to a village. They meet a young woman on the bank of a river. The river has flooded and she asks the monks to help her across. Without hesitation, the older monk raises her up onto his shoulders and carries her across. The young monk, somewhat aghast, follows behind. The young woman thanks the old monk and goes on her way. The two monks continue walking. After some time, the young monk finally asks, "Master, as we are monks, how is it that you would allow yourself to touch the flesh of a woman, knowing it might waken temptation in you?" The old monk replies, "Young master, I left that woman by the bank of the river. Why is it that you are still carrying her?" 

It's a beautiful story, and it has many characteristic elements. We have the old monk acting in an unexpected fasion. We have a young monk with vanity in his belief that he is wise. What appears to be a very clear cut rule is broken, but then a more important principle is elucidated. In his striving for detachment, the young monk has become attached to detachment. We see that the old monk's actions were motivated by an intuitive, natural logic based on compassion and awareness, whereas the young monk is motivated by his concern for spiritual achievement. So, that aside, lest we get too far afield into religion...

The younger monk would be acting in a fashion exemplifying LN (keeping his discipline, and not behaving with any particularl altruism or selfishness, simply in accord with his personal precepts), whereas the older monk would be acting in a fashion consistent with CG (breaking all the rules, but to a productive and helpful end), although we can assume such an enlightened soul is probably Neutral (but generally rather pleasant, if you are not a thick-headed Zen student).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

While it is a nice story, it is a story.  A parable. It is not necessarily the way an actual Zen monk would act.

A student might be told to contemplate such a story during his chores.  Or, perhaps more likely, told part of the story before meditation- say, right up to "...The young monk, somewhat aghast, follows behind. The young woman thanks the old monk and goes on her way. The two monks continue walking..."

The hope being, of course, that he will find the story's inner meaning without actually contemplating it (IOW, reaching the state of zazen); something that requires extreme discipline.


----------



## Micco (Sep 5, 2009)

> While it is a nice story, it is a story.  A parable. It is not necessarily the way an actual Zen monk would act.




True, but it could be argued that fantasy is _about_ stories.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While it is a nice story, it is a story.  A parable. It is not necessarily the way an actual Zen monk would act.




Is that not true of any story? Even if I were talking about an actual event, isn't it the case that the actuality is more than the essential elements preserved in one telling of it? I've met enough Zen monks to know better than to overgeneralize. I'm kind of curious what the purpose of this comment is. Is this a rebuttal to my claim that some spiritual paths have a Chaotic aspect when viewed through the D&D lens? If so, in what way?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2009)

I'm not saying that a religion or belief may not have a chaotic element- even a strong one.  I'm just not agreeing with you that Zen is one of them.

What I'm saying is that while the story that teaches a particular lesson, it may not be indicative of the actual RW practice of zen buddhism, which, by the accounts of their daily lives has a _very _strong Lawful aspect through that D&D lens.  They may use Chaos to teach or to gain an advantage over an opponent, but it isn't necessarily embraced as the basis for their ethical viewpoint.  Chaos is just a tool for them, not a path.



> *SRD*
> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
> 
> <snip>
> ...




A person of either of those ethoi could act as the elder monk did...or as the younger one (who could, as you pointed out, also be LN) did.

Consider the multiple stories from Christianity in which Jesus bucks the rules of Judaism.  He associates with the unclean...then eats without ritual purification.  He accepts water from foreign women.  He heals people on the Sabbath.

Yet most people would say he and the religion founded in his name would be a good representation of a LG belief system.

Just because someone bucks _a single_ rule- in your story, the admonition against letting the flesh of women touch the flesh of a monk- doesn't make a person Chaotic, especially if obeying the rule lets Evil or injustice flourish.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

What if I want to posit that all the Lawful behavior, the disciplines and joining sects and rules and so forth, are aimed at a Chaotic end? I want to turn your argument backwards; Zen is basically neutral, and many aspects have a strong Chaotic streak. Zen monks would not be practicing their disciplines if they did not believe it was leading to liberation, unboundedness, and detachment from the order of the world. 

Simply performing meditations or whatever is not per se indicative of alignment; many real-world monks do it because they have always done it. It's just their job. While Lawful alignments might encourage discipline, that does not make discipline itself indicative of a lawful alignment. Just because Good values life and discourages killing does not mean that someone who is not Good does not kill. 

Going back to the question you pose, "To what end?," what I understand of Zen suggests an iconoclastic, intuitive, paradoxical path aimed at individual liberation that leads its practitioners to avoid thinking they can control others. Rituals and practices are understood as tools for enlightenment, and in themselves are valueless. The adage, "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha," summarizes simply the view that even the path of Buddhism can be an obstacle. 

This is a marked contrast to the Platonic philosophers, who argued for logic, consistency, general principles that could be understood in a way that led to specific conclusions, laws and rules that themselves embody ideals of the Good, and so forth. In a class on pre-Socratic philosophers I took in college, we spent some time comparing and contrasting the "Eastern" and "Western" philosophies, especially where they mingled in Turkey. Although Plato struggled with the concept of apprehending universal truth, he did not conclude that if you meet Socrates, you should kill Socrates. 

One Lawful religion I can think of is Confucianism. It tells you what to do, when to do it, and why you are doing it. And it says, you do it. The reason you do it is because it is what you do. That's Lawful. 

I have met Buddhists whose outlook seems more Lawful... or at least, more Neutral. I would, however, characterize most of them as culturally (natively) Buddhist, with some exceptions. There is a reason Buddhism is called the Middle Way. In D&D terms, you could say it adds more Chaos to liberate the soul and more Law to ensure you are reaching enlightenment and not simply confusion. So, while drawing the usual conclusion that real-world ethics are rarely simple to define in D&D terms, I will still say that most Zen translations I've read tend to shade from True Neutral to Chaotic Good. 

In any case, there are plenty of other precedents for Chaotic monks, such as Jackie Chan's "young student" type character, the Monkey King, and various monastaries in open rebellion for much of Chinese history.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Consider the multiple stories from Christianity in which Jesus bucks the rules of Judaism.  He associates with the unclean...then eats without ritual purification.  He accepts water from foreign women.  He heals people on the Sabbath.
> 
> Yet most people would say he and the religion founded in his name would be a good representation of a LG belief system.




Actually, I would not peg Jesus's alignment as Lawful. He is probably NG, exemplified by the Golden Rule. An argument can be made for CG, especially considering such actions as disrupting the tradesmen in the temple, excusing gentiles from Judaic ritual purity laws, and leading a group of followers so insurgent that the question is actually posed to him whether they should play taxes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> What if I want to posit that all the Lawful behavior, the disciplines and joining sects and rules and so forth, are aimed at a Chaotic end? I want to turn your argument backwards; Zen is basically neutral, and many aspects have a strong Chaotic streak. Zen monks would not be practicing their disciplines if they did not believe it was leading to liberation, unboundedness, and detachment from the order of the world.




Its possible, but I still don't agree that a philosophy preaching ultimate unboundedness would start by shackling itself with rules.



> Zen suggests an iconoclastic, intuitive, paradoxical path aimed at individual liberation that leads its practitioners to avoid thinking they can control others. Rituals and practices are understood as tools for enlightenment, and in themselves are valueless.




My assertion places Chaos into that selfsame category.



> The adage, "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha," summarizes simply the view that even the path of Buddhism can be an obstacle.




But is also a hint at a deeper truth.  As I understand it, the Buddha you meet in the path would be considered a "bodhisattva," an enlightened being who, while capable of ascension, has either remained behind to teach others or is otherwise on the cusp.  By killing him, you release him from this world to progress to true "buddahood"...and exhibit a bit of enlightenment yourself.



> In any case, there are plenty of other precedents for Chaotic monks, such as Jackie Chan's "young student" type character, the Monkey King,




I'll buy *that*...


> and various monastaries in open rebellion for much of Chinese history.




...but not that.

The rebellious monasteries of China were not so much an example of the monk's devotion to a Chaos-aligned ethos so much as of two strong but opposed Lawful organizations with differing agendas.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its possible, but I still don't agree that a philosophy preaching ultimate unboundedness would start by shackling itself with rules.




It would make sense to object to a Lawful philosophy advocating a liberation from rules. But there is nothing wrong with a Chaotic philosophy shackling itself with rules; Chaos is not required to have congruent precepts. Thus I object to the classification of Zen as Lawful, whereas I do not buy your objection to Zen having a Chaotic streak.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 8, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> IMO, _all_ the standing class alignment restrictions are rather daft.




Oh, yes. Yes yes yes.

I am at the point right now of having removed all alignment restrictions from base classes, and am bordering on the point of removing alignment entirely from the game. Clerics and Paladins have a code of conduct related to their faith. Healers heal whomever needs it and never harm their patients-- but that doesn't stop them from being as Evil as the day is long. Knights have a strict code of conduct... that does not in the least stop them from embracing individuality, freedom, or even anarchy and slaughter.



Aus_Snow said:


> I _vastly_ prefer Paladins to be 'any Good' and always have (Lawful only? puh-lease)...




You know, if they're going to have the Blackguard class for evil Paladins, the Holy Liberator for chaotic good Paladins, the Temple Raider of Olidammara for chaotic neutral larcenous Paladins, the Gray Guard for "greater" good Paladins, and the Pious Templar for everyone else... I don't see why they can't just make Paladin a class like Cleric, with all of the same restrictions.

If you want to make the Code of Conduct stricter, so be it.



Aus_Snow said:


> ... Monks to be 'any' (mostly for all those different styles and philosophies, which yeah, really do exist[!])...




The favored class of Githzerai is Monk. Shouldn't that be enough said?



Aus_Snow said:


> 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.




Yeah, but when certain rules are admittedly kept for reasons of tradition alone, or for "flavor reasons" that do not particularly make sense, it shouldn't be necessary to make house rules to circumvent them.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 8, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, I would not peg Jesus's alignment as Lawful. He is probably NG, exemplified by the Golden Rule. An argument can be made for CG, especially considering such actions as disrupting the tradesmen in the temple, excusing gentiles from Judaic ritual purity laws, and leading a group of followers so insurgent that the question is actually posed to him whether they should play taxes.



 But he plainly said, "pay unto Ceasar what is Ceasars". Pretty Lawful.
The Tradesmen were actually breaking the rules, but it happened originally so long ago that it was overlooked. 
Gentiles never were about of Judiac purity...there aren't judiac.
 It was the non-gentiles that he excused. But he always had a rationale: one is allowed to save their oxen. So performing miracles is just as defended he said.

Now that part is argueable but not Chaotic.
So LG is possible.
Remember, Jesus said his Father is God so he was above the lesser laws because his Father was the true ruler. 

But enough of that

Think of it as State and National Govt: If the National govt changes the rules: the state can't say do the Govt broke the state law. It is above that.


----------

