Idea: 3rd edition druids

[Moongaze]

Idea: 3rd edition druids.

Allows druids to select NG, LN, TN, CN, and NE alignments at character creation.

[CamDawg]

Revamping druids is on the roadmap for Cleric Remix, and this is one of the core revisions.

[Borsook]

there's a mod called Natural Selection that tries a bit to balance the druids out... Anyhow why would you want the druids to be able to choose other aligments?

[CamDawg]

I think the 3e system of letting druids have a bit more latitude in their alignment selection is better for roleplaying.

[BevH]

Yep, in 3E druids can be any neutral alignment, although True Neutral is still preferred.

[Buck Naked]

I've just had a Smirnoff Ice, so forgive me If I get a little cocky here, lol.

 

A lot of the alignment restrictions just don't sense to me, they often seem restrictive for no reason:

 

PALADINS: Why not just ANY good? Hardly seems like we have to require that they ALL be anal retentive (which is how most people seem to interpret lawful alignments).

 

RANGERS: Why do they have to be good? 3E fixes this, gladly. What, you can't be evil and still love the wilderness lifestyle?

 

BARDS: Why not ANY? Even 3E still limits you, saying that you can't be of any lawful alignment (I suppose because of the stereotype of "artistic" people being more "liberal" than others). This is a class that includes a wide variety of scholars, historians, musicians, actors, entertainers, etc. Sure, "objectivity" is desirable in such fields, but have you noticed how decidely UNobjective most people in academia, the media, and entertainment really are...?

 

BARBARIANS: In 3E, they cannot be lawful. Why not? Aren't most barbarians rather tribal, implying at least some capacity for "lawfulness," etc.

 

MONKS: If only lawful characters can maintain discipline and dedication, then I guess there should be NO chaotiic alignments allowed in ANY class then.

 

DRUIDS: Always struck me as more like nature mages than nature clerics, and so again, why restrict their alignments? At least 3E loosened this one up a bit.

 

As you might have guessed from the above, IMHO there really shouldn't be too many alignment restrictions in the first place. A good argument can be made for almost any alignment choice and class combination, so why limit a person's creativity? Game balance only comes into play when you're talking about everyone wanting to play a good-aligned renegade Drow ranger, etc. Too many alignment restrictions on classes just encourages people to maintain limited and unimaginative stereotypes. "Lawful means anal retentive." "Chaotic means unpredictable rebellious psychotic." "Good means self-righteous." "Evil means homicidal maniac." "Neutral means you always flip a coin to decide what you're going to do, so it will all balance out in the end." YUK!

 

Your mileage may vary, you're entitled to your own opinion, etc. And remember, I was drinking when I wrote this.... LOL

[Borsook]

Paladins - if you're not Lawful (duty to the order) they won't train you and won't kinght you.

Same for Rangers/Druids/Monks.

 

I like those restrictions actually. I believe that 3e, though it has many good ideas ideas, is largely too cheesy and to set on power gaming - thus silly: "I'll play a really evil thief, but I'll take 1 level of ranger for dual-wielding".

[Buck Naked]

Paladins - if you're not Lawful (duty to the order) they won't train you and won't kinght you.

Same for Rangers/Druids/Monks.

 

I like those restrictions actually. I believe that 3e, though it has many good ideas ideas, is largely too cheesy and to set on power gaming - thus silly: "I'll play a really evil thief, but I'll take 1 level of ranger for dual-wielding".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You've missed my point. Surely "orders" could be started/run by people of other alignments, etc. Even the LG-only paladins have several different orders, and some of them are even rivals! My point, in the case of paladins, is why wouldn't there be a class or "order" where goodness trumped all, and the lawful/neutral/chaotic aspect was less relevant? It's a question of why the rules set up this sort of restriction in the first place, when there are at least as many reasons against it as there are for it, and some of the ones against it make more sense. As for the rest, I think you need to go back and read my post again.

[Borsook]

I'd agree with you in 110% should it be PnP with a creative GM. Personally I like PnP RPGs that don't have the "aligment feature". But since we're talking about computer games - sure there may be an order in which goodness is emphasized over lawfulness, but IE games are done with those "archetipical" assumptions, if you want paladins to be able to be any good or monks of any at all, than you'll either get strange resaults at time or would have to mod a lot, eg. IWD2 has NPC reactions/dialogues basing on your class, playing chaotic good paladin would be... well just a "tag" cause still you'd get responses designed for a lawful-good paladin.

 

PS. Yeah, I admit I was very sleepy when writting previous replay, and missed a part of you post.

[Kish]

silly: "I'll play a really evil thief, but I'll take 1 level of ranger for dual-wielding".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rangers have no alignment restrictions in 3ed and, for that matter, rogues/thieves certainly don't have to be evil in any edition, so how is that "silly"?

[Borsook]

silly: "I'll play a really evil thief, but I'll take 1 level of ranger for dual-wielding".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rangers have no alignment restrictions in 3ed and, for that matter, rogues/thieves certainly don't have to be evil in any edition, so how is that "silly"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By silly I meant 3e multiclassing system which resaults in many people taking 1 level of some class just to get a "nifty bonus". In my personal opinion it has nothing to do with roleplaying where becoming a ranger should be connect to character's life choices not "my thief needs dual-weilding, 1 level of ranger is more cost-effective than spending two feats". It also undermines some game mechanincs (like elves getting long sword/long bow proficiency - what does it matter if somebody can make human 8 lvl wizard/1 lvl fighter and have all the proficiencies plus a bonus feat)

[jester]

A boy grows up with his parents in the forest. Just as his father he wants to become a ranger. When he is still quite young his parents die defending their forest from an horde of orcs. The boy can flee and finds refuge in one of the big cities in the vicinity. His sharpened senses and his knowledge about stealth and cunning help him to edge out a living on the streets of Amn. Soon he is one of the best thieves around and his skills and prowess are only whispered of between the guards.

 

As a DM I would find such a background story viable. So let him have his 1 level of ranger.

[CamDawg]

The probem with discussions over which rules are better is that any ruleset is fantastic--with a good DM. I'd rather see a discussion on which ruleset is better given that the DM is the Infinity Engine and that we need to accomodate roleplayers without giving powergamers free reign.

[jester]

I think the powergamer perspective is more in the min/maxing more than in combining classes since the engine or better the game design does not allow for reactions to abyssmal stats, so a CHA 4/INT 4 fighter can still do all the quests while in other games (Fallout, Arcanum, PST to some degree) he would be barred from many quests and most encounters with NPCs would yield negative effects. To have Paladin/Bard/Sorceror is not as bad gamewise in my book, but I guess there is not much that can be done to alleviate this design flaw.

[Andyr]

I think Paladin would do better as a Prestige Class designed around Fighters/Rangers/Clerics than as a core class.

 

As an aside, opening Bard alignments up is something we do in Song and Silence (well, for base class and some kits).