3E aligment rules for alignment tied classes

trinit

i expect this will cause some anger with purists, but i think game should handle the options of evil rangers, good druids, neutral paladins etc.

especially because there are many characters in both bg games that do not conform to the various aligment rules for certain classes. i think this is even more viable, if alignment becomes flexible in-game variable for the playing characters, as suggested in previous discussions.

Ward

I suppose the reason paladins must be lawful good is because of their obligations to their guild. But I don't see why there can't be other alignment combinations for different classes.

Alignment doesn't even do anything in the game until Throne of Bhaal. It should DO something, right?

trinit

of course, there should be repercussions for some alignment changes. paladin becomes anti-paladin in this case. maybe evil ranger should have protection from good instead of protection for evil. etc...

Ward

I was always confused when I got Viconia to put Protect From Evil on herself. Oh well, a tiny evil never hurt anybody. She's hot anyway.

But I support actions changing your alignment like with Neverwinter Nights, how you'd have 0/100 .

AndreaColombo

I'd have to agree with trinit despite being something of a purist myself. Evil rangers are real, people: the sooner we realize it, the better ;-)

Tanthalas

I'd actually actively support some of the NPCs being changed to a more proper alignment (Jaheira and Faldorn would be my top picks for that) though I know that this would infringe on the "no changing the original story material".

FranticFey

Same with Tanthalas, I'd also support the alignment changes for certain characters that don't act as their assigned assignments - I believe either the BG2 Fixpack or Tweakpack from G3 actually implemented this, albeit for characters in SoA. Jaheira should definitely be changed to Neutral Good, though.

In terms of allowing separate alignments, I see these requirements to be a bit closed-minded in recognizing people of all types, as AndreaColombo said! Requiring rangers to be good reminds me of Salvatore's Drizzt series, where all rangers seem to have this inherit desire to protect people, yet the games seem to present rangers that deny this assumption - look at that Beastmaster in SoA's Copper Coronet!

technophobe

For better or worse, they're trying to improve the original game by its own standards. 2e is pretty clear on class, race, and alignment restrictions. However arbitrary or wrong you think they are, it's an inherent part of the system and, quite frankly, is virtually inconsequential to the game itself.

Kore

Well presumably all playable rangers worship Mielikki, hence why they are required to be good. I'm not sure why CHARNAME should be required to worship her rather than any other ranger god though.

Dazzu

Valygar is an open agnostic who knows he's goin to the wall when he dies. If we allowed Rangers full scope of alignment, then he'd probably make sense as a True Neutral than Neutral Good.

It'd be nice to allow Paladins to be lawful anything.

Kore

Valygar is an open agnostic who knows he's goin to the wall when he dies. If we allowed Rangers full scope of alignment, then he'd probably make sense as a True Neutral than Neutral Good.

It'd be nice to allow Paladins to be lawful anything.

Surely being agnostic means that Valygar can be any alignment rather the being true neutral. I think it's perfectly reasonable that he should be Neutral Good.

Boaster

Always wanted to play a Dark Ranger or Dark Paladin class.

Probably should be made as a different class entirely.

And a Paladin switching to a Dark Paladin class should be based upon actions/reputation.

Paladin to Fallen Paladin, to Dark Paladin. Likewise for Ranger, perhaps.

trinit

@Boaster: agreed. i think it would help the world feel more immersive and believable to add at least alignment variety to classes. the only problem i see is how to handle stronghold quests later on in bg2ee. if nothing else, at least alignment flexibility reflected in npc-s would be nice... :P

kamuizin

Dunno, somethings give base to the game, i'm not entirely against alignment options to some class but not as a choice, a paladin that fall on his patch doesn't become a anti-paladin but a fallen paladin. What would be nice is some backup, quests and options to characters that falls from their patch, as a fallen druid, ranger or paladin.

The fluid alignment change is a planescape thing cos for what i understand on that game, the actions you have on the planes inflict more influence on you alignment than the acts on the prime.

Not gonna complain if the change is made, but must be done well if not this can cause some instability on the game consistency.

Rajick

Yeah always wanted a neutral evil ranger.
More spusifically a neutral evil stalker cuz I personally think you've got to be a little evil to have a class name like that.
And he would be drow named varin'fel and is basically the opposite of drizzt in everything but class.

kamuizin

If you don't mind chaotic evil ranger, try Bishop in Neverwinter Nights 2 (if you can stand the boring that's the original campaign is).

ARKdeEREH

Ward said:

I suppose the reason paladins must be lawful good is because of their obligations to their guild.

Perhaps there could be another guild added that supported evil paladins? I mean, there are knights of Talos, right? I think it would make sense that they could be evil paladins and that, therefore, it would be possible for a paladin to remain true to his/her guild and yet still be evil.

moody_mage

A non-lawful good Paladin is not a Paladin, it's something else. 3.5E rules still maintain Paladins need to be lawful good (at least in NWN2 anyways). An evil Paladin is a Blackguard.

VedwintheTyrant

I've never understood the problems people have with alignment. If you want to play an evil character then by definition you do not want to play a Paladin. Playing a Paladin isn't about the class abilities; it's about the dedication to ideals of virtue. The class abilities only supplement that. Playing a druid isn't about saving the trees; it's about being on no one's side because no one is on your side. The class abilities are just flavor to go along with that philosophy. I am glad that the developers have introduced the Blackguard, because there does seem to be a genuine interest in the community in being able to play a champion of misanthropy. In many ways I think that fits with the story of the game. I could see, also, the interest of an evil Ranger, but I think people may be confusing "evil" with "dangerous." Rangers have always been intended to fulfill the type of "dangerous," in the same way that their progenitor--Aragorn--was seen to be dangerous before he was seen to be one of the good guys. Remembering that provenance, however, I think you'll find that Rangers, too, must by definition be good. The interest of a Ranger lies in maintaining that dangerous demeanor while coming through in the end as a decent human being. I agree that the skills of woodsmanship have no particular moral affinity, but I think the character type that Ranger represents must. I, too, would not be averse to a change to a Planescape type system where a character's actions determined his or her alignment. I appreciate how such a system makes alignment an active part of the storytelling. I just don't see how one could ever play an "evil Paladin," a "non-neutral Druid," or an "evil Ranger." An "evil Paladin" isn't a Paladin. A "good Druid" is not a Druid. An "evil Ranger" is not a Ranger. Making those classes might be interesting. Diluting the existing classes, I think you'll find, is, on the other hand, counterproductive.

trinit

@VedwintheTyrant i disagree.

evil or good ranger are equally dangerous, but act and behave very differently, although they may have the same abilities. so in most cases, people want to see more flexible alignment choices where that seems sensible (there is no good reason for ranger not to be evil or neutral, just like the druids, without betrying the base principles of their class.)

i remember neutral paladins existed (adherence to law above everything else) and now we see evil paladin implemented in game as a blackguard kit. i do not think ALL alignment requirements should be removed, but more flexibility would make sense (especially in rangers and druid case).

most sensible requirements i've seen, revolve around law/chaos scale, not good/evil.

VedwintheTyrant

I appreciate your words, but I feel that they lack sense. I am trying to explain that morality, as expressed through "good" alignment, is part of the denotation of the term Ranger as used in 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons. We could call an evil Ranger something like a Stalker or a Woodsman or a Highwayman. The abilities might be the same but the motivations are so different that they cannot be contained in the same terminology. Dungeons and Dragons owes so much of its heritage to Tolkien, and many of its concepts must be understood in that context. A Ranger is not a generic woodsperson; a Ranger is an elite warrior who fights evil in the wild so as to protect society from its influence. As a necessary consequence he or she is forced to live outside of society, and is therefore a dangerous individual. An evil Ranger would be a person who chooses to eschew society so as to profit by murder. That is a character type which is antithetical to the ideal Rangers represent. Third Edition attempted to change these associations and it was rightly reviled for doing so because it could not offer sufficient storytelling reasons for doing so. 3.5 has the benefit of a break with 2nd edition such that I think we could begin to talk about evil Rangers without muddying our terminology, however I personally would still question the validity of what amounts to a villain in a very classical sense as a suitable subject for storytelling. What is the interest in playing a killer of men?

VedwintheTyrant

A Paladin is not Lawful Good because his or her guild requires it. A Paladin is Lawful Good because he or she is the type of individual who believes the world should be just and compassionate in equal measure. Paladin is a concept drawn in equal parts from history and legend. In the 9th century A.D. Charlemagne, king of France, created a knightly order to defend his kingdom. He called them Paladins. Their ideals would have been derived from the Christian philosophy and morality of that time. Since then many stories have been written both about Charlemagne's Paladin's and about virtuous knights in general. This is the character type that Paladin represents. It is a character type that comes first and foremost from an idealism on behalf of the character. Paladins aren't forced to be good by their guilds. They are people who strive to do good and who form associations with like-minded individuals in order to further their goals. Has any one here seen Monte Cook's Unearthed Arcana? In that book a system exists for creating champions of any ideal who are therefore people of all different stripes. There is a champion of tyranny--similar in many ways to what the Blackguard represents. I agree that a role-playing game is only as good as it is capable of exploring a broad range of character archetypes. I think, however, it is a misconception to construe Paladin as a generic honor-bound knight.

RomulanPaladin

Bah! I've already been over stuff like this.

Also, D&D classes were designed to fit literary stereotypes. That's why things work the way they do. As the literary culture changed, these restrictions began to dissolve. Alignment restrictions are appropriate for BG as they are as long as we consider BG to be a product of its time rather then our own time.

HaHaCharade

I'm too much of a purist to consider such things... LOL. My 1st Edition Player's Handbook is turning over on its shelf. Here, do this. Add a Stalker Kit for evil rangers. Just like you did a Blackguard for basically what amounts to an evil Paladin... leave Druids alone. They are so Neutral by default its not even funny. I agree, Jaheria really doesn't follow her alignment... should have been a Fighter/Cleric really.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Kirkor

Well, there are shadow druids, or whatever they are called. They are druids and they are evil...

kamuizin

@Kirkor, shadow druids aren't evil, they're probally the most neutral druids that you encounter, neutral isn't necessary = calm or balanced as Cernd for example.

Jaheira shoud had became a fallen druid after a time or in BG II with a quest to make her understand the neutrality of a druid to restore her druid status. But unfortunally that fall in the original content problem.

Kirkor

@kamuizin
Well, they are evil in my book. They never listened to reasoning, and probably if they could, they would just destroy whole civilisation.
But I agree with Jaheira. She is not perfect as a druid either... And as a harpher.

RomulanPaladin

Well, let it be known that in 2nd ED, there were these things called "specialty priests." They were just like normal clerics in most ways but differed in some important ones: they could often use different weapons and armor, they cast spells from different spheres, had special powers, and used a different XP progression table then normal clerics. The differences depended on what faith you belonged to.

Believe it or not, the druid class is actually a specialty priest.

This fact isn't advertised just like they didn't really let on that a specialty wizard is actually a kit. But, if you look at the old resources, it's all right there: different weapon and armor restrictions, spells from different spheres, special powers, and the specialty priest XP progression.

What I'm getting at is that Jaheria (being a harper) and the Shadow Druids may actually belong to a technically different specialty priest class. This may be A justification for why they are allowed different alignments.

trinit

@VedwintheTyrant i understand what your trying to say, but i think that there is enough room for flexibility in all of the archetypes. evil ranger could kill people without second thoughts just to protect some nature. natural selection process could be understood very rigidly and extremely, again resulting in evil alignment. i think evil and good stuff in D&D leave a lot of room for maneuvers, despite being absolutistic and all.

VedwintheTyrant

@kamuizin That's an excellent idea. I like how that would make for a deeper and more character-driven story.