Priest of Talos vs Blackguard - no disadvantage/disadvantage evil alignment?

HexHammer

Reading the describtion of Priest of Talos there are no disadvantage, but as a Blackguard it's described to be a disadvantage to be only of evil alignment, yet both of them can only be of evil alignment?

Could the describtion of Priest of Talos be updated to also have the same describtion as the Bg please?

elminster

Since it is very trivial and not very contestable I think this falls under the category of a bug, so the thread should be moved there. Also all of the cleric kits are initially restricted in their starting alignment, though it doesn't say this in game for any of them. It is however implied to some degree by the fact that it says each are gods of a certain alignment.

bigdogchris

@Jalily has been looking into things like this as of late.

HexHammer

..I'm sorry that you feel that way old man..

Been working on a newspaper, and it usually isn't considerd any bug that a journalist forgets to apply the same lable on 2 different things, that's just forgetfulness.

...............and just to be nitpicking, IIRC the different paladins end word lacks a "."

Jalily

Yeah, back when the manual was being written, I was like, "How is that a disadvantage?" But to be consistent (and informative), I'll give the cleric kits the same treatment.

What do people think about adding alignment info to the class descriptions, too?

Rangers: Must be good.
Thieves: Must not be Lawful Good.
Monks: Must be lawful.
Bards: Must be neutral in some manner.
Paladins: Must be Lawful Good.
Druids: Must be True Neutral.

elminster

Jalily said:

Yeah, back when the manual was being written, I was like, "How is that a disadvantage?" But to be consistent (and informative), I'll give the cleric kits the same treatment.

What do people think about adding alignment info to the class descriptions, too?

Rangers: Must be good.
Thieves: Must not be Lawful Good.
Monks: Must be lawful.
Bards: Must be neutral in some manner.
Paladins: Must be Lawful Good.
Druids: Must be True Neutral.

looks good

ajwz

Jalily said:

Yeah, back when the manual was being written, I was like, "How is that a disadvantage?" But to be consistent (and informative), I'll give the cleric kits the same treatment.

What do people think about adding alignment info to the class descriptions, too?

Rangers: Must be good.
Thieves: Must not be Lawful Good.
Monks: Must be lawful.
Bards: Must be neutral in some manner.
Paladins: Must be Lawful Good.
Druids: Must be True Neutral.

I have helpfully compiled some more:

Sorceror: Must be sexy
Bard: Must be drunk
Kensai: Must be dual-classed to a mage at level 9
Wizard Slayer: Must be joking

ZanathKariashi

Why? Kensage are horrible if dualed at 9. A berserker is better in every way and has no real penalty. And even if you dual at 13 it only has a small damage advantage to a 9 berserker (like 1 point), but takes forever to get there, and again, has several penalties.

The only class a kensai should ever even think of dualing into is a thief, since that's 1 area they excel without contest. Of course i feel Kensai are best left single class, but thats just me I guess.

Allbrother

Jalily said:

Yeah, back when the manual was being written, I was like, "How is that a disadvantage?" But to be consistent (and informative), I'll give the cleric kits the same treatment.

What do people think about adding alignment info to the class descriptions, too?

Rangers: Must be good.
Thieves: Must not be Lawful Good.
Monks: Must be lawful.
Bards: Must be neutral in some manner.
Paladins: Must be Lawful Good.
Druids: Must be True Neutral.

Please no
I'm tweaking the ridiculous alignment restrictions in my game and I don't want to have to tweak the descriptions too

Mornmagor

You could syntax it as : Alignment : Any Good or Any Lawful instead of must be. Not that it matters anyway but it sounds more "official" :P

The Paladin might be weird, since he has a kit that is any evil.