Honestly, all evil protagonists should have a reverse rep penalty.
I beg to differ. A villain needs a good publicity to stay...well...to stay alive and a villain. I honestly think, that the reputation as it is implemented in the game is flawed. (Just think of a char with a really low reputation - storekeepers won't sell you anything. Do you really think that a weak storekeeper would want to anger a powerful and potentially homicidal maniac? Or that Edwin would be glad when everyone attacks him on sight?) No. Even though villains are more self-centered and some revel in being feared, no good evil mastermind would throw away a good reputation. Let's say we have two very evil overlords. One of them has a good PR and is viewed as the "good king and savior" and the other one is feared and kills people without a reason (what a waste). Which one do you think would heroes of the land stand in queue to overthrow? I usually play Evil alignments and avoid Paladins. However, I keep my reputation around 9-14. Occasionally, it goes up as to 18-20...but then I kill some poor soul on purpose, just to drop it and keep my evil co-workers happy and feared. It is just too easy to gain reputation in the game.
Of course, being evil means you are much less selfless than the goody two-shoes and will have lower reputation. Therefore, I like the "less than 14 rep" rule for Evil kits.
I remember reading in 3.5 players guide that dwarf rangers are sometimes know as cavers. I thought that was cool. It'd be cool to see an evil dwarf ranger whose signature weapon is an axe rather than a bow
Simplified, the game system rewards you for doing good deeds. Good deeds are not what makes evil characters happy, they hate doing that stuff. They would rather steal and murder than work at being a do-gooder in order to get discouts.
Alignment restrictions are an artifact of the whole alignment system. If you subscribe to the system, alignment restrictions on class should make some sort of sense. Lawful for monks, Neutral or evil for thieves, Evil for assassins and Blackguards etc...
The down side is that if you remove alignment entirely, people will merely play what they want. Paladins in 1E were restricted because they got a bunch of abilities that Fighters didn't. It needed to be balanced so they made it a behavioral balance instead of a mechanical one.
In 3.5E I hated that people would take 1-2 levels of Paladin just to bet the bonus to saving throws and to qualify for EDM. It really cheapened the class in my book.
But to the OP's original suggestion, I like the idea of a Disciple of Malar being an evil ranger. I could totally get behind that. I often play a Half Orc stalker of sorts and could absolutely see the ranger skill set being very helpful. Essentially making a combat focused (due to his lineage and background) stealth based fighter type. That makes sense to me.
Can I swap out the name Rambo for that? It has an awesome ring to it, and it's funny which is most important. I always thought Rambo sounded a little like rainbow. And rainbows are only cool if you're casting colorspray, and nobody ever casts that spell.
Malar being an evil ranger. I could totally get behind that. I often play a Half Orc stalker of sorts and could absolutely see the ranger skill set being very helpful. Essentially making a combat focused (due to his lineage and background) stealth based fighter type. That makes sense to me.
Malar....let's see...his worshipers include rangers....I gotta say it's already been done. Beastmaster kit.
Can I swap out the name Rambo for that? It has an awesome ring to it, and it's funny which is most important. I always thought Rambo sounded a little like rainbow. And rainbows are only cool if you're casting colorspray, and nobody ever casts that spell.
Not sure if you understand the reference. Belkar Bitterleaf is a character from the (D&D comedy) webcomics Order of the Stick (starts here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html) Belkar is like our Montaron. A halfling - and a little, Chaotic Evil murdering psychopath mostly used for comedic relief in the story. (He later takes some levels in Barbarian) It's a good read.
Honestly, all evil divine caster protagonists should have a reverse rep penalty.
Fixed that - I'd be in favor of reverse-restricting classes that gain their spells from evil deities. Why should a paladin fall if he does too much evil, but a blackguard won't... umm, ascend? if he does too much good? Take Dorn as example - his patron picked him because of his ruthlessness and anger. If Dorn now decided to become a hospice nurse and hold a monthly "feed the orpheans" festival, his patron would probably not see the point in supporting him anymore. Dorn would either be killed for his betrayal, or the patron would say "meh, screw that guy, I'll find someone worthy", revoke his powers and give them to someone who lives up to the requirements. Or a priest of Talos who walks around being lawful good would probably be seen by Talos as a total whimp who just doesn't get the point of his own religion. He could pray all he wants, Talos would not get the desired results from granting him power.
Cleric kits in general and Blackguard have very little drawbacks - it's only the alignment restriction and that's frankly not much of a drawback for most players. If the kits got a restriction to stay somewhat close to their deity's alignment, it would add a bit balance. Have good clerics fall the same way rangers and paladins fall; neutral clerics have to stay between 8 and 15, evil clerics can't go above 14; as a penalty, they'd lose the kit abilities and "fall" to vanilla.
Honestly, all evil divine caster protagonists should have a reverse rep penalty.
Fixed that - I'd be in favor of reverse-restricting classes that gain their spells from evil deities. Why should a paladin fall if he does too much evil, but a blackguard won't... umm, ascend? if he does too much good? Take Dorn as example - his patron picked him because of his ruthlessness and anger. If Dorn now decided to become a hospice nurse and hold a monthly "feed the orpheans" festival, his patron would probably not see the point in supporting him anymore. Dorn would either be killed for his betrayal, or the patron would say "meh, screw that guy, I'll find someone worthy", revoke his powers and give them to someone who lives up to the requirements. Or a priest of Talos who walks around being lawful good would probably be seen by Talos as a total whimp who just doesn't get the point of his own religion. He could pray all he wants, Talos would not get the desired results from granting him power.
Cleric kits in general and Blackguard have very little drawbacks - it's only the alignment restriction and that's frankly not much of a drawback for most players. If the kits got a restriction to stay somewhat close to their deity's alignment, it would add a bit balance. Have good clerics fall the same way rangers and paladins fall; neutral clerics have to stay between 8 and 15, evil clerics can't go above 14; as a penalty, they'd lose the kit abilities and "fall" to vanilla.
This is a good idea (no pun intended). Rangers, paladins, and preists are all about their oaths and the faith type stuff, for everybody else it doesn't matter.
My favorite class is a chaotic good beserker theif. I do illegal and sometimes evil stuff and feel bad about then make up for it with good deeds. Until eventually I learn that being good is what suits me best. But not before i murder Drizzt for his gear! It's also very cool to do solo runs with that build, almost exactly when I hit level 7 I can reach the Baldur's Gate theives guild and follow that questline as a theif. It's one of the few times dual-classing makes sense.
@Lateralus - that's exactly how I plan to play my next game ! (once I finish this one and the patch/BG1 NPC mod gets released), Well, except for the "Berserker" part. I plan to have a Single-weapon + Shortbow jack-of-all trades Thief. And except the "Chaotic Good" part ... I'm gonna be more like Lawful Evil. A quite selfish magnificent bastard with his own code of honor, who is not above helping people if it fuels his goals, but does not think twice about removing an obstacle.
Southpaw you would love a blackgaurd run. I killed EVERYTHING. I took all of the npcs bodies and arranged them at gorions ambush site LOL. so pretty my art. Furthermore, he's got 90 stat points and 00 str. The flaming fists got me in time. Sneaky is better.
Oh yeah i named him Lord Sauron. Lol. Bastard sword in one hand mace in the other
Hey guys, I like the idea of an evil aligned character that uses ranger skills to get his way.
What about the title of Poacher? A man who abuses his knowledge of the land and animals for self gain.
He could be more focused on disabling enemies with enchantment-like abilities (like hold), along with his traps and poisons. He would plink away or stab into defenseless enemies like a real bastard.
I see poacher as pretty much an evil-only title, as it implies that one breaks the law and hunts without warrant. Poachers also rely on the black market and make seedy deals to turn profit from their efforts, so it gives him experience in the criminal world.
Hey guys, I like the idea of an evil aligned character that uses ranger skills to get his way.
What about the title of Poacher? A man who abuses his knowledge of the land and animals for self gain.
He could be more focused on disabling enemies with enchantment-like abilities (like hold), along with his traps and poisons. He would plink away or stab into defenseless enemies like a real bastard.
I see poacher as pretty much an evil-only title, as it implies that one breaks the law and hunts without warrant. Poachers also rely on the black market and make seedy deals to turn profit from their efforts, so it gives him experience in the criminal world.
I'm playing icewind dale 2 right now and I love the fact that I have a drow neutral evil ranger cuz I like the idea of a ranger/assassin. I also never put anything in the animal empathy skill cuz hes from the underdark what does he care about animals from the serface for.
I just saw the new Riddick movie in the cinemas. That's our Dark Hunter ranger kit right there!!
Let's see - a stealthy warrior, dual wielding short blades (a Ranger indeed) - use of traps - use of venoms (not entirely, but the theme was in) - light or no armor (armor restrictions) - Evil (even though there can be discussions about his alignment, especially due to several "kind moments", he is definitely not Good) - even though, he is a shadow warrior, backstabs aren't the core of fights, so probably not a Stalker (x2 BS multiplier for the Dark Hunter would be in order)
I think something would be lost in generalizing--and I realize that this is subjective and some of you undoubtedly don't feel it is generalizing--the ranger class with an evil kit. Even rangers driven by vengeance are not inherently evil (in fact it is a common characteristic of rangers), and frankly I don't think an evil character would be as in tune with nature and animals.
I like the idea of a staggered, asymmetric spectrum of classes across the alignments. I think that this was intentionally done by the game's creators, and it gives a unique feel to the game.
The asymmetric spectrum, as you call it, is just very biased in favor of good alignment. Before Blackguard, Paladin and Ranger, two entire classes and all their kits, were only available to good. On the other hand, there was just one entire class, Druid, for neutral only and exactly none for evil only.
A RPG is about getting creative with characters and these restrictions mostly have no logical reason. They just restrict the creative use of entire classes. I don't see a problem with being evil and also in tune with nature and animals. Sure, an evil character is probably not all about cuddling puppies, but I can see evil and neutral characters feel a connection with wild, dangerous and generally feared animals; with climates other people would find harsh and hostile ("if it doesn't kill me, it makes me stronger" mindset) or both. After all, druids are all about nature too, and they are neutral.
The asymmetric spectrum, as you call it, is just very biased in favor of good alignment.
Ah, but what is an asymmetric system if it is not biased a particular way? I simply do not accept the premise that it is better that there is an effective mirror for every archetype of good alignment. Again, this is how I perceive uniqueness.
I also think that claiming that restrictions put in place by the developers themselves are illogical is an ignorant stance.
Since no one can tell somebody else how to have fun, I would defer to the standard compromise: "Let the modders make the kit!"
Asymmetric could also mean that a particular alignment leans toward a particular playstyle - neutral (due to the druid class) might lean toward divine magic, evil could favor a stealthy, backstabby style and good a tanky melee style. It would still be 'biased', but in all directions and just suggest an archetype of each alignment. Suggest, not force.
"The developers are always more right than the players" is invalid. My proof? Last minute Imoen in BG1 --> plot focussing heavily on her due to popularity in BG2
If players don't voice their preferences and ideas, the developers can't know what their customers really like. And from what I see, there is interest in a neutral and/or evil ranger, and several approaches how to structure and balance such a kit. It's not taking away your fun if someone else can play such a kit. The sensible compromise when disliking kits or classes is more "if it's no fun, don't play it".
The sensible compromise when disliking kits or classes is more "if it's no fun, don't play it".
Yeah, that's the general premise of mods.
I think you more or less are agreeing with my points. Now all we need is a modder up to the task of making a neutral and/or evil ranger kit. I personally probably wouldn't play it, but then that's the beauty of these things.
Either a modder, but I would very much like it if Beamdog tossed one in in the upcoming patch/BG2EE release. We've done half the job of designing it already for them. (And I hope we did balance it quite well. It's not an uber-power kit like some I have seen. Hell, the Blackguard is very, very OP and has virtually no downsides.)
Here's my favorite theme for the kit, it explains everything:
A long time ago there lived a man named Darkbow. His past was tortured by the loss of his family, murdered at the hands of mercenaries who were hired by greedy land developers. He dedicated his life to vengence, and sought out the secrets of the rangers. Darkbows methods did not adhere to the ranger code, and he was banished before being allowed to take the sacred oath. His anger twisted out towards them, and he began to question why they didn't stop the attacks that ended his family. His training half finished, he set out to devise methods of his own means. Maddened, he sought to destroy the rangers by ruining their reputation by framing them for murder and theft. In time he recruited others and created his own sect of rangers, bound by a blood oath to do evil. Calling his new family the Dark Hunters.
I think this theme is solid, but i changed the original guys name.
Comments
A villain needs a good publicity to stay...well...to stay alive and a villain.
I honestly think, that the reputation as it is implemented in the game is flawed. (Just think of a char with a really low reputation - storekeepers won't sell you anything. Do you really think that a weak storekeeper would want to anger a powerful and potentially homicidal maniac? Or that Edwin would be glad when everyone attacks him on sight?)
No.
Even though villains are more self-centered and some revel in being feared, no good evil mastermind would throw away a good reputation. Let's say we have two very evil overlords. One of them has a good PR and is viewed as the "good king and savior" and the other one is feared and kills people without a reason (what a waste).
Which one do you think would heroes of the land stand in queue to overthrow?
I usually play Evil alignments and avoid Paladins. However, I keep my reputation around 9-14. Occasionally, it goes up as to 18-20...but then I kill some poor soul on purpose, just to drop it and keep my evil co-workers happy and feared. It is just too easy to gain reputation in the game.
Of course, being evil means you are much less selfless than the goody two-shoes and will have lower reputation. Therefore, I like the "less than 14 rep" rule for Evil kits.
Simplified, the game system rewards you for doing good deeds. Good deeds are not what makes evil characters happy, they hate doing that stuff. They would rather steal and murder than work at being a do-gooder in order to get discouts.
The down side is that if you remove alignment entirely, people will merely play what they want. Paladins in 1E were restricted because they got a bunch of abilities that Fighters didn't. It needed to be balanced so they made it a behavioral balance instead of a mechanical one.
In 3.5E I hated that people would take 1-2 levels of Paladin just to bet the bonus to saving throws and to qualify for EDM. It really cheapened the class in my book.
But to the OP's original suggestion, I like the idea of a Disciple of Malar being an evil ranger. I could totally get behind that. I often play a Half Orc stalker of sorts and could absolutely see the ranger skill set being very helpful. Essentially making a combat focused (due to his lineage and background) stealth based fighter type. That makes sense to me.
A viciously evil lunatic ranger living in the woods, luring lone victims towards a certain death in the wilderness.
Or am I pushing it too far here?
Belkar is like our Montaron. A halfling - and a little, Chaotic Evil murdering psychopath mostly used for comedic relief in the story. (He later takes some levels in Barbarian)
It's a good read.
(See Belkar? THAT's an evil ranger!)
Cleric kits in general and Blackguard have very little drawbacks - it's only the alignment restriction and that's frankly not much of a drawback for most players. If the kits got a restriction to stay somewhat close to their deity's alignment, it would add a bit balance. Have good clerics fall the same way rangers and paladins fall; neutral clerics have to stay between 8 and 15, evil clerics can't go above 14; as a penalty, they'd lose the kit abilities and "fall" to vanilla.
My favorite class is a chaotic good beserker theif. I do illegal and sometimes evil stuff and feel bad about then make up for it with good deeds. Until eventually I learn that being good is what suits me best. But not before i murder Drizzt for his gear! It's also very cool to do solo runs with that build, almost exactly when I hit level 7 I can reach the Baldur's Gate theives guild and follow that questline as a theif. It's one of the few times dual-classing makes sense.
And except the "Chaotic Good" part ... I'm gonna be more like Lawful Evil. A quite selfish magnificent bastard with his own code of honor, who is not above helping people if it fuels his goals, but does not think twice about removing an obstacle.
Oh yeah i named him Lord Sauron. Lol. Bastard sword in one hand mace in the other
Yarr...
What about the title of Poacher? A man who abuses his knowledge of the land and animals for self gain.
He could be more focused on disabling enemies with enchantment-like abilities (like hold), along with his traps and poisons. He would plink away or stab into defenseless enemies like a real bastard.
I see poacher as pretty much an evil-only title, as it implies that one breaks the law and hunts without warrant. Poachers also rely on the black market and make seedy deals to turn profit from their efforts, so it gives him experience in the criminal world.
That's our Dark Hunter ranger kit right there!!
Let's see
- a stealthy warrior, dual wielding short blades (a Ranger indeed)
- use of traps
- use of venoms (not entirely, but the theme was in)
- light or no armor (armor restrictions)
- Evil (even though there can be discussions about his alignment, especially due to several "kind moments", he is definitely not Good)
- even though, he is a shadow warrior, backstabs aren't the core of fights, so probably not a Stalker (x2 BS multiplier for the Dark Hunter would be in order)
I like the idea of a staggered, asymmetric spectrum of classes across the alignments. I think that this was intentionally done by the game's creators, and it gives a unique feel to the game.
A RPG is about getting creative with characters and these restrictions mostly have no logical reason. They just restrict the creative use of entire classes. I don't see a problem with being evil and also in tune with nature and animals. Sure, an evil character is probably not all about cuddling puppies, but I can see evil and neutral characters feel a connection with wild, dangerous and generally feared animals; with climates other people would find harsh and hostile ("if it doesn't kill me, it makes me stronger" mindset) or both. After all, druids are all about nature too, and they are neutral.
I also think that claiming that restrictions put in place by the developers themselves are illogical is an ignorant stance.
Since no one can tell somebody else how to have fun, I would defer to the standard compromise: "Let the modders make the kit!"
"The developers are always more right than the players" is invalid. My proof? Last minute Imoen in BG1 --> plot focussing heavily on her due to popularity in BG2
If players don't voice their preferences and ideas, the developers can't know what their customers really like. And from what I see, there is interest in a neutral and/or evil ranger, and several approaches how to structure and balance such a kit. It's not taking away your fun if someone else can play such a kit. The sensible compromise when disliking kits or classes is more "if it's no fun, don't play it".
I think you more or less are agreeing with my points. Now all we need is a modder up to the task of making a neutral and/or evil ranger kit. I personally probably wouldn't play it, but then that's the beauty of these things.
We've done half the job of designing it already for them. (And I hope we did balance it quite well. It's not an uber-power kit like some I have seen. Hell, the Blackguard is very, very OP and has virtually no downsides.)