Remove the alignment restriction on Bards!

[Lurzifer]

Hey,

Title says all. I dont get why, except the obvious this time followed dnd rules.
Give us Paladin Monk Bard combinations! We deserve them :P

[TimethiefXVI]

./not signed
u could also want to remove the alignement restriction from pallys and monks, JUST NO

[thwart]

I am not in favor of removing the alignment restrictions either. However, to play devil's advocate, I keep hearing on these boards that alignment in Eberron is different and not as black and white in other campaign settings. That is in part why my paladin can go in to a SH temple and slaughter innocent worshippers and red named bosses with Peace and Love in their names.

If it is true that alignment in this campaign is a little wishy-washy, I could see the argument for removing alignment restrictions. I read a post about the coming U-11 update suggesting that some of the paladins in the new quest were taking good/holy damage. Thus, an evil paladin.

Anyway ... I say keep the alignment restrictions and chalk this up as one of my least valuable posts on this forum!

[blade_of_will]

I'm fine with it. Lawful alignments arent cool enough for bards anyway.

Some of the alignment restrictions are weird though. Monks and druids I can understand, paladins seem like they should be the same as clerics (you have your good/evil/chaotic/lawful and so on versions), but the rest didnt make a ton of sense.

[DaSawks]

In PnP the alignment restrictions are set in stone. Here I can see some of the posters point were we are required to kill good creatures. In PnP a LG Pally would never do that. I say give every class the ability to go True Neutral.

[Uska]

no works just like pnp as it should

[Thalmor]

Then they arn't Bards.

[Drallac]

flip side is introduce class change rules, like in pnp, a paladin for example can become fallen/anti-paladin/ex paladin by committing evil acts allowing use of all abilities but halting any progress as a paladin. Similarly a Bard can do the same by becoming lawful.

I've wanted this for a long time, I loved taking characters and making them how they arent meant to be, in Baldurs gate playing as an anti-paladin was awesome fun. To me it adds more depth, flavour and creativity. Would love to see the Paladin/warchanters, the monk/bard/rogue builds, to me it would be interesting to see even MORE versatility in the already awesome bard class

[Uska]

flip side is introduce class change rules, like in pnp, a paladin for example can become fallen/anti-paladin/ex paladin by committing evil acts allowing use of all abilities but halting any progress as a paladin. Similarly a Bard can do the same by becoming lawful.

I've wanted this for a long time, I loved taking characters and making them how they arent meant to be, in Baldurs gate playing as an anti-paladin was awesome fun. To me it adds more depth, flavour and creativity. Would love to see the Paladin/warchanters, the monk/bard/rogue builds, to me it would be interesting to see even MORE versatility in the already awesome bard class

In my campaign a fallen paladin would have proably been a dead one courstesy of his/her deity and I have nver allowed nor will I ever allow evil as an option for players. and they wont here either.

[Dark83]

In PnP a LG Pally would never do that.Why not?
What if you're in a war against soldiers that are Good? Sit aside and let your side's soldiers get killed?

[Trillea]

Why not?
What if you're in a war against soldiers that are Good? Sit aside and let your side's soldiers get killed?

Evil deeds committed in the name of good are still evil deeds. They can and do cause Paladins to fall.

[wigthemaster]

Hey,

Title says all. I dont get why, except the obvious this time followed dnd rules.
Give us Paladin Monk Bard combinations! We deserve them :P

paladin monk bard....

Monk - Barb
Barb - Pally

EDIT: sorry forgot to mention my opinion

/not signed

[gloopygloop]

I do agree with the alignment restrictions on Paladins. That is kind of what being a Paladin is all about.

I also agree with the alignment restrictions on Barbarians and Monks because it would just be rediculously overpowered to have a Barbarian Monk combination. The run speed on that character would just flat out break every quest in the game.

Bards, on the other hand, should be any alignment as far as I'm concerned. Some bards are wandering minstrels, but some are rooted to the clan in which they were raised and grounded in a Lawful tradition that goes back for centuries.

[DevHead]

Are we basing this game off of D&D or whatever we want it to be? You don't play a game then demand to change the rules; you work within the system.

There *are* class variances of Paladin that let you go just about any other alignment, but then you aren't technically a paladin, though you have very similar abilities. Bards are not lawful because they are bards; look 'em up in PnP. People need to stop trying to change things because they don't like it. What's the point of a challenge, then?

[gloopygloop]

Are we basing this game off of D&D or whatever we want it to be? You don't play a game then demand to change the rules; you work within the system.

This makes a lot of sense to me. That's why DDO casters have limited spell slots per day instead of going with some kind of spell point/mana system for casting spells. This is D&D, dangit! Not Rolemaster or GURPS or WoW!

[Arnhelm]

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

[k1ngp1n]

I keep hearing on these boards that alignment in Eberron is different and not as black and white in other campaign settings. That is in part why my paladin can go in to a SH temple and slaughter innocent worshippers and red named bosses with Peace and Love in their names.

There is a subtlety to this that is often missed (and why the alignments work the way they do). In order for a LG Paladin to go into a temple and slaughter worshippers, the paladin must think they are evil. S/he is not committing an evil act if the intent is there.

A barb cannot intend to be lawful. They can do lawful things (in other DnD worlds, they could not) but the intent of the character is different.

[Bekki]

While I do not Agree with removing the alignment restrictions...
I can see the Op's point.

I like the idea of a "Fallen Paladin" or Former Bard though....
In fact Bekki's whole back story centers on being a "Fallen" Paladin...
(He sacrificed all to save the life of a friend..)

However the Devil is in the coding... Now, I don't know much (if anything) about that,
And it could be that it is just to dang hard to incorporate, so rather than try and goon it up, it is easier to just say no... Forbidding it altogether is easier and less disruptive to the game, whereas it is possible that allowing it would be much more trouble than it is really worth... That being the case...
Which would you choose...?

Just my two cents...

[Lurzifer]

Why do people come up with alignment changes to Paladins. Never said anything about Paladins, Monks or Barbs. Only about bards, why cant bards be lawful, when even rogues can.

And going back to the Monk/Barb... who doesnt want frenzy 3 wraping ;)

[Quarterling]

/not signed

[Orratti]

Bard/Paladin is a very good mix. Probably too good. Bards don't settle down. They are always on the move their free spirits leading them ever towards new adventures, brothels, and taverns. Sorry, no room for a lawful stict sober bard/pally in this game!

[katz]

a bard? strapped down to triffling LAWS? pish posh. what silly talk is this? :eek:

someone who's LAWFUL would look down on me for my grease clickie collection and dance belt. :D

wait...

i shouldn't have admitted to that....


:eek:


*dances away*

[Dawnsfire]

I would leave it the way it is. It makes for an easy way to prevent certain extremely powerful multiclass options. So /notsigned .

I do find it pretty interesting that some people's sole arguments are that this is the way it is done in pnp. Unlike pnp, alignment doesn't really mean anything in DDO except for damage, item exclusions and class selection. If you want it to work like pnp you would have the ability to change alignment as a character progresses and that would allow these mixes (Paladins slaughtering halflings in a sewer perhaps). It is an interesting can of worms to be sure ;)

[Victorhammer]

Just because the op wants to play an unique multi class trying for some new super star toon does not mean ddo should do it. This game has been bent around far too much already IMHO. People are not using toons the way they are intended. People are constantly finding ways to subvert the game in their favor and then crow about how great they are. Most DM's would throw these players out of their games.

I vote no way do not change the alignment requirements. If anything ddo should find a way to enforce alignment restrictions on players toons. Introduce things like fallen paladins etc...

[mobrien316]

That is in part why my paladin can go in to a SH temple and slaughter innocent worshippers and red named bosses with Peace and Love in their names.

They were collaborators...

[DevHead]

I would leave it the way it is. It makes for an easy way to prevent certain extremely powerful multiclass options. So /notsigned .

I do find it pretty interesting that some people's sole arguments are that this is the way it is done in pnp. Unlike pnp, alignment doesn't really mean anything in DDO except for damage, item exclusions and class selection. If you want it to work like pnp you would have the ability to change alignment as a character progresses and that would allow these mixes (Paladins slaughtering halflings in a sewer perhaps). It is an interesting can of worms to be sure ;)

I tend to have my character act the alignment while playing him/her.

[Memnir]

No thank you.

[Aesop]

Well... to play devils advocate there is a Feat in Complete Adventurer called Devoted Performer. What it does is allow some aspects of paladin and bard class features to count both for class level determination. You still MUST remain Lawful Good, but...


The feat actually reads


Devoted Performer [General]
You have foregone the pursuit of frivolous musical talents, instead entering religious training in service of honor and justice.
Prerequisite: Bardic music, smite evil.
Benefit: If you have levels in paladin and bard, those levels stack for the purpose of determining the bonus damage dealt by your smite evil ability and determining the number of times per day that you can use your bardic music. This feat does not allow additional daily uses of smite evil or bardic music abilities beyond what your class levels would normally allow.

In addition, you can multiclass freely between the paladin and bard classes and may even gain additional bard levels regardless of your lawful alignment. You must still remain lawful good in order to retain your paladin abilities and take paladin levels. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Now this feat alone wouldn't normally allow bards to mc with paladins unless they already were... ie a bard went LG and pick up Pally then this feat would com into play... but here it could be taken as a paladin and then allow for multiclassing with Bard despite the normal Alignment restriction.

So that could be an option without changing NORMAL alignment restrictions

Aesop

[Uska]

Well... to play devils advocate there is a Feat in Complete Adventurer called Devoted Performer. What it does is allow some aspects of paladin and bard class features to count both for class level determination. You still MUST remain Lawful Good, but...


The feat actually reads



Now this feat alone wouldn't normally allow bards to mc with paladins unless they already were... ie a bard went LG and pick up Pally then this feat would com into play... but here it could be taken as a paladin and then allow for multiclassing with Bard despite the normal Alignment restriction.

So that could be an option without changing NORMAL alignment restrictions

Aesop


Opitional book not offical and I never saw anyone allow it and they shouldnt start bringing in optional books here either most of the splat books were way OP

[Aashrym]

Opitional book not offical and I never saw anyone allow it and they shouldnt start bringing in optional books here either most of the splat books were way OP

They already have brought in optional splat books. That's where many of our PrE's come from. I encourage them to bring in splat books, but within reason.

I think we can adopt a few things without going overboard.

EDIT: the alignment restriction change is not something I think we need.

[EustaceTrevelyan]

Hey,

Title says all. I dont get why, except the obvious this time followed dnd rules.
Give us Paladin Monk Bard combinations! We deserve them :P

Have to respectfully /notsign, since while yes, they've gone rather far afield from pnp in maaaany cases, the bard is a freewheeling sort of person, not one dedicated to upholding order, precluding lawful. And monks and paladins have their own very specific things requiring lawful/lawful good respectively. Given how much pnp they have to disregard to make it an MMO, i think they have to keep as much as they can.

But i feel your pain on those tasty multiclass ideas just out of reach, all those tantalizing synergies waiting to be tapped. Ah well:(

[Aesop]

Opitional book not offical and I never saw anyone allow it and they shouldnt start bringing in optional books here either most of the splat books were way OP

I disagree with the "not official" its not like its a third party book. Additionally the Complete X books have been used for Classes PrEs and Feats.

As this also costs a Feat and when those two classes are already feat starved it would be hard to call it overpowered

Aesop

[Seikojin]

As powerful as it would be, the idea behind a bard and a pali are soo polar, that it makes sens they couldn't be classed together.

/not signed.

[DoctorWhofan]

Hey,

Title says all. I dont get why, except the obvious this time followed dnd rules.
Give us Paladin Monk Bard combinations! We deserve them :P



No. Next you will be asking for barbarian's restrictions to be lifted.

[MaxwellEdison]

No. Next you will be asking for barbarian's restrictions to be lifted.

Melvin, the Thoughtful Barbarian!

[Aerendil]

This is a really tricky topic.
If memory serves, in nearly every version of D&D, Paladins have *always* been LG; Barbarians have *always* been chaotic.

But Bards.... well, Bards change in every version it seems.

In 1st edition, Bards could be of any alignment, so long as it was neutral on one axis (i.e. Lawful Neutral, Neutral Good, Chaotic Neutral, etc. all qualified);
2nd edition = same as 1st.

But in 3.0/3.5 it was changed to "any non-lawful". This unfortunately makes it incompatible with Monk (which requires any "Lawful" alignment).

Doesn't entirely make sense, but oh well - that's the rules.

[jandhaer]

If we cant have ALL the alignments to choose from then keep em the way they are

-Chaotic Evil- FTW

[Calebro]

If it is true that alignment in this campaign is a little wishy-washy, I could see the argument for removing alignment restrictions. I read a post about the coming U-11 update suggesting that some of the paladins in the new quest were taking good/holy damage. Thus, an evil paladin.

See below.


In PnP the alignment restrictions are set in stone. Here I can see some of the posters point were we are required to kill good creatures. In PnP a LG Pally would never do that. I say give every class the ability to go True Neutral.

Not true. At least, not in Eberron.
Below you will find an article that I think best explains alignment in Eberron. Read it if you wish, ignore it if you wish, but it explains some of the differences between Eberron alignment and traditional alignment, and even has a specific paragraph about the Lord of Blades.

Don't worry, I'm working on getting this into a legible format that doesn't take up the entire page right now.

Alignment

Alignment is still a part of Eberron. Removing alignment completely would
have a lot of mechanical implications and would have more of an impact on
importing or exporting material to and from other settings than, say, action
points. With that said, we are taking a slightly different approach to
alignment. The first has already been mentioned in one of the articles,
and that is that there are very few things that have mandatory alignments.
Wererats aren't always evil and gold dragons aren't always good. The
second is a broader look at alignment -- using more of a scale of shades
of gray as opposed to pure black and white. What does it mean to have
an evil alignment? One of the main elements is the willingness to put your
own needs ahead of the needs of others. Well, by that definition, how many
people do you know who are evil? In a big city, you're going to find an awful
lot of evil people. So you're a paladin, and you discover that the innkeeper
is evil. First off, you can't just cut him down where he stands; being "evil"
is not a crime. The question you have to wonder is just how evil is he?
Odds are, he's just greedy and selfish; he'd be happy to overcharge you
for your meal, but he won't murder you while you sleep. Then again, you
never know...

It's worth noting that human evil is one of the forces the Silver Flame
strives to combat -- but that is generally a philosophical battle as opposed
to a physical one, the work of the church ministry as opposed to the
church militant.

At the same time, there are some foes out there that are very black
and white. This allows the DM to pick the style of place best suited
to his or her group. If they like ethical and moral dilemmas, then urban
adventures, corruption within governments and churches, and a number
of the more complex conspiracies are ideal things to use. If the players
prefer straight-up action, they can fight to keep groups like the Order
of the Emerald Claw from seizing ancient artifacts and posing a threat
to the world as we know it. The goal of Eberron is to embrace multiple
different playstyles. As a whole, it's "pulp/noir" -- but it's up to you to
decide the balance between the two.

…I suppose I am defining good and evil here to a large degree in terms
of empathy: do you care at all about other people? A good person does;
a neutral person may, depending on how it impacts them; an evil person
does not.

But, of course, the point is that these things are colored in shades,
instead of being black and white.

True, the Monster Manual does note that it is possible for an "always"
alignment to change, but that "these creatures are unique or rare
exceptions." We're just taking that a step farther. As things stand,
you *could* run into an evil gold dragon, but it would come as a
surprise. In Eberron, you don't have the expectation that the dragon
is good to begin with -- you're going to have to find out by interacting
with it. Mainly, the point I was trying to make before is that detect spells
won't necessarily be helpful, because knowing that someone is evil doesn't
tell you just how evil they are. The paladin may be able to say "I don't trust
this guy..." But it's not the case that everyone who possesses an evil
alignment is a villian (or, potentially, that everyone with a good alignment is
a hero).

The one case where fixed alignments are slightly more common are extraplanar
entities. If a being is a living embodiment of an idea or concept, it follows that
it will usually have a certain alignment (i.e., most angels are good). However,
you can always have fallen angels and redeemed fiends, so even that can't
be taken for granted.

An important point here is that you don't have to be good to worship a good
deity, as noted by the fact that the Silver Flame has problems with corruption
in its ranks. And indeed, most of the people of Eberron are neutral.

With most people (clerics and fiends notwithstanding) a spell like detect evil
will tell you that someone is evil, but not how evil they are. Likewise, if I'm
the King of Breland, I may want an evil man to be my spymaster; a ruthless
man may make a more effective spy than a good one. If you tell the king "Half
you court is evil!" he might say "If they get their jobs done, it's no concern of
mine."

So detect alignment spells may be used to get a sense of a person -- but no,
it's not like you're going to be arrested for being evil... It's possible [that
detect alignment spells could be used to screen people from organizations].
The point is that there aren't that many alignment specific groups; a variance
in alignment is an expected part of the mortal condition.

Another good point: just because someone behaves in a manner that is
clearly evil doesn't mean that they see themselves that way. They may
consider themselves to be the only people who have the guts to do what
needs to be done for the greater good.

There are two points to the "gray" alignment of Eberron. The first is that
you can't rely on creatures filling traditional alignment roles -- so you can
have a good wererat or an evil silver dragon. The second is a general
encouragement to look at alignment in this broader sense. In my mind,
the Lord of Blades is evil. He sees himself as good, and he is doing good
things for the warforged. But if it served the needs of the warforged, he
would burn down a building full of teary-eyed halfling orphans without a
moment's thought. In the case of the lycanthrope purge, at least the
potentially innocent lycanthropes still carried the curse and could infect
others; like it or not, they presented a threat. The Lord of Blades will kill
humans who present no threat to prove a point or accomplish a goal. To
me, that equates to evil: all that matters are his own personal goals. He
may have empathy for a specific group, but he is willing to inflict horrors
on all others to protect the interests of his followers (and frankly, I wouldn't
see him freeing other oppressed people, though I can see how you could take
him in this direction).

But... OK, he's evil. He'll do bad things. But let's say you find a warforged
slave labor camp in Karrnath and you discover the Lord of Blades is planning
on attacking it. What do you do? Sure, the Lord of Blades is "evil". But the
commanders of the camp may be just as despicable. Do you fight him? Do you
help him free the warforged and then fight him? Do you try to free the warforged
yourself in such a way as to preserve the lives of the human overseers (who the
Lord of Blades will surely kill) - even if you're undermining the rightful authority of
the King of Karrnath? Again, that's where the gray factor comes in: there won't
always be a right answer.

Now, there's no reason you couldn't run the same story in any D&D setting.
This is nothing unique to Eberron. It's just there are a lot of similar situations
that can come up in Eberron -- villains who may have good reasons for their
terrible actions, good organizations that may be corrupt or misguided.

[The Lord of Blades] may act in a way that is perceived as good by a large
number of people. But the fact that he will inflict horrors without a second
thought is what makes him evil overall. Good characters can take evil actions --
evil characters can do good. The question in my mind is one of remorse and
preference. If the character has to slay an innocent for the greater good --
it's possible that both a Lawful Good or Lawful Evil character. But I would expect
the Lawful Good character to agonize about it and try to find another way, while
the Lawful Evil character just shrugs and does it.

I suspect that the Lord of Blades' followers come from all alignments. And that's
my point: this is a world where for the most part, good and evil can not only
work hand in hand, but have to do so every day. There are forces that are
clearly black and white -- villains that are simply bad and allies who are clearly
good, and if you hate moral ambiguity you can focus on those aspects of the
world. But many of the power players in the world are less easy to categorize.
Sure, any one member of the group has a specific alignment, but the actions
of the group itself may be harder to predict. You're going to have a hard time
finding someone more noble than the Keeper of the Flame -- but that doesn't
mean you won't run into soldiers of the Silver Flame engaged in a reprehensible
act. Likewise, you could encounter a group of warforged acting on behalf of the
Lord of Blades who are all lawful good; they'll just handle their task in a different
manner than he would.


But the bottom line is that all of that stuff relates to NPCs. The general rules still apply to characters for the most part. There are and have always been exceptions to the rules for characters, but they are always at the DM's discretion. The DM in this case is DDO, and they have opted not to utilize any of those optional rules in the case of alignments and PCs.

[Pseudograph]

When the muse no longer seeks the free spirit and rock n roll rebels wait for the walk sign to light...
everyone will play paladin/bards because the power of doctrine will subjugate creativity...
and all the songs will be the same.

[Emili]

Paladins were originally designed with knights in thought... a code of chivalry and fairness with mind towards the greater good was thier scope.

Bards are based on ... yes you guessed it - a barb. These were the minstrels and poets of celtic society ... the word bardos "to raise your voice in praise" and so bard (Irish, Scottish) and bardd (Welsh) encompasses those who do. ;) The skalds, minstrels and scops of the filidh and fili by very nature ... unlawful, wonderers, observers though they be respected as such the chronicle and recorders of history and bearing great deeds. They do as they please ... above the laws of man or king often. Today we look upon them as they recorded, advised and although handed down tradition - to them rules need not apply, fact being in all cases freedom and creativity is key while laws were made to be broken.

In light a lawful bard to me would seem quaint, an oxymoron possibly? Old News ;) And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.

[Antheal]

Why are Rogues allowed to be lawful?

[Aashrym]

Why are Rogues allowed to be lawful?

Because it follows organized crime, politicians, and lawyers. ;)

[oradafu]

Why are Rogues allowed to be lawful?

The lawful ones are Repomen.

[Alabore]

This is a really tricky topic.
If memory serves, in nearly every version of D&D, Paladins have *always* been LG; Barbarians have *always* been chaotic.


Odd bit of trivia - hoping memory is serving me right: 2nd ed Complete Fighter's Handbook mentioned Paladin as a possible class for the Berserker kit, claiming the savage fury of the Berserker totem was what granted a Paladin his/her powers.




Sorry, no room for a lawful strict sober bard/pally in this game!

+1 rep cookie for this one.
The idea of the sober bard was fun in a sad way.

[Jackal912]

I'm really not seeing how bards are forced to be frivolous wanderers, inherently - there's a lot of possible bard flavors that could just as easily be as lawful as chaotic - there's countless examples of storytellers, singers, and musicians who are deeply rooted in the traditions and culture of a group. It's kind of absurd to think that they're only allowed to tap into the bardic oomph if they abandon everything that matters to them and wander aimlessly. If anything, they could even be better in some ways due to a bit more focus and discipline in their musical endeavors - Ask almost any musician, it requires LOTS of practice and LOTS of dedication to become truly good at an instrument.

[blade_of_will]

Evil deeds committed in the name of good are still evil deeds. They can and do cause Paladins to fall.

Only if the paladin's god says "No, you weren't supposed to do that." Good groups sometimes commit 'evil' acts and evil groups sometimes commit 'good' acts, really for good vs evil in many cases it is the intention of the action that matters rather than the result. For paladins, it is even more specific, since they are the champions of their gods, meaning they follow their deity's teachings/directions, and many people seem to forget that they have to be both GOOD and LAWFUL.. when the two dont always coincide. Commiting brutal mass executions may not be 'good'.. but if the ones killed were given fair trials by law and deemed guilty, it may be the paladins duty to execute them.. again, paladins are set up to be the champions of the doctrines of lawful good deities. What causes a paladin to 'fall' is solely at their deity's discretion.

[TimethiefXVI]

Talking of fallen pallys etc, a point u seem to miss here is a pally, by loosing his lawfull good alignment can no further proceed in pally lvling, AND will loose all pally class feats and traits (pls correct me if im wrong)

[Dark83]

Evil deeds committed in the name of good are still evil deeds. They can and do cause Paladins to fall.How is defending your countrymen from invaders an "evil deed"? Even if the invaders are just hapless Good soldiers following the orders of a misguided king? Paladins fall from their choices, not things they don't know or can do nothing about. The "got'cha!" cases only occur from ****-poor adversarial DMing.

What kind of semi-omniscient god strips his champion of power because the champion was tricked or caught in a Catch-22? One that's poorly written.

[gloopygloop]

How is defending your countrymen from invaders an "evil deed"? Even if the invaders are just hapless Good soldiers following the orders of a misguided king? Paladins fall from their choices, not things they don't know or can do nothing about. The "got'cha!" cases only occur from ****-poor adversarial DMing.

What kind of semi-omniscient god strips his champion of power because the champion was tricked or caught in a Catch-22? One that's poorly written.

Capture the Good soldiers without killing them or die trying.

If they don't know that something is Evil, then they can get an atonement. If they "can't do anything about it", they can always die trying. Doing Evil in the name of Good is still Evil.

[fool101]

I agree with alignment restrictions for the most part.

Paladins and monks should be lawful .

But seeing as how rogues don't have alignment restrictions, I don't see why bards should. To me it is easier to be a lawful bard than a lawful rogue.

That is my only justification with bard, regardless of pnp rules.

[honkuimushi]

I would be okay with it if it was done through the devoted Performer Feat. Make the prereqs be Bard 1 or Paladin 1 and the effect of the feat would be to allow LG characters to take additional Bard levels or to allow an alignment change to LG for Bard characters.

Of course since most Paladin/ Bard Builds would probably be 2-6 level splashes of Paladin, mostly for Divine Grace, you could always make a half-elf Bard and take the Paladin Dilly.

[katz]

I agree with alignment restrictions for the most part.

Paladins and monks should be lawful .

But seeing as how rogues don't have alignment restrictions, I don't see why bards should. To me it is easier to be a lawful bard than a lawful rogue.

That is my only justification with bard, regardless of pnp rules.


bards are free spirits. lawful rogues are politicians. :p

[Templarion]

I guess the alignments are there only because DDO is based on Dungeons & Dragons role playing game. The whole alignment system is more flavor than a serious mechanic or rule. The restrictions that are made using alignments could be done other way as well.

My vote would be: Remove all the alignments.

But the DnD fanatics want them to stay, so they stay.

[Igrovin]

One of the weird things is.. in Pathfinder.. they removed the restriction on bards.... and somehow they still maintained being a bard..

[Dark83]

Capture the Good soldiers without killing them or die trying.No, that is stupid and if you're required to do that you have a crappy old-school adversarial DM who's looking to screw you over.

Nation A's soldiers believe they are doing good, Nation B's soldiers believe they are doing good. For the purpose of the paladin's actions, the only basis the paladin needs to follow is that of his patron god. If there was a war between followers of Torm and followers of Helm, Torm is not going to consider killing soldiers of Helm while defending his temple to be "non-Good". He'd likely consider deliberately getting yourself killed due to moronic idealism and getting his temple sacked and other followers killed to be dereliction of duty.

Trying to capture enemy combatants in the middle of a battle, getting yourself killed and resulting in your fellow countrymen dying should result in your patron god *****-slapping you in the afterlife. Certainly as a good person he should be trying to reduce loss of life, but that completely separate from a holy warrior making a conscious decision to "don't kill the enemy, even if you get yourself killed".

Either the paladin is acting in accordance with their patron god's wishes and fighting a legitimate enemy, or he is not and should not be fighting on that side in the first place. If a paladin fights in a war on the side that his god supports, kills enemy combatants and Falls, the player should rightfully ask "What? My god told me to fight on this side? What the hell was I supposed to do?" If the DM answers "You should have let yourself get killed", then nobody should be surprised when the DM gets objects thrown in his face.

That whole "that wasn't the Good thing to do" thing you're spouting is inapplicable - it's judgement passed down from an "objective" and "impartial" observer, which has nothing to do with the only opinion that matters - the subjective and partial judgment of the patron god. Unless this is a god who regularly sacrifices his champions for the sheer sake of failing his own objectives (in which case why does he even have followers?), it's just the DM screwing the paladin over.

[taurean430]

Hey,

Title says all. I dont get why, except the obvious this time followed dnd rules.
Give us Paladin Monk Bard combinations! We deserve them :P

No.

[Satinavian]

I share Dark83s opinion.

To not fight in a war to protect the people you vowed to protect as effective as the rules of warfare allow is neglecting ones duty and not a deed of good.


topic :

I would totally do a bard/monk/pally 16/2/2 spellsinger with casting stat to saves, evasion and 2 bonus feats. That is why it probably should stay forbidden.

[Alabore]

To not fight in a war to protect the people you vowed to protect as effective as the rules of warfare allow is neglecting ones duty and not a deed of good.

And yet, consider Ultima VI's plot twists.

Being a paragon of Good virtues, the Avatar could be likened to Paladin, as far as Align is considered.
A LG could think of an out of the box way to end the war; that would be working within Align to further Good's ends, beyond the will of your patron deity.

Of course the underlying prob is, Greater Good vs Relative Good.
Among friends, on the gaming table, players and DM should first agree on what kind of Good they're really going to further, so the potentially fallen Paladin is actually doing his/her/its duty, and not just getting screwed over mistaken priorities.

...

About DDO and Align: it's just a device preventing powergamers from mixing potentially overpowered multiclasses.

Paladin and Bard could be mixed in other DnD editions/books - but it was also a flavour choice.
People playing DDO don't always care for flavour; they'd happily mix Artificer and Druid, Paladin and Pale Master, Barbarian and Monk, if only given the chance.

And I'm sure we have some Pal/PMs around.

[Satinavian]

And yet, consider Ultima VI's plot twists.

Being a paragon of Good virtues, the Avatar could be likened to Paladin, as far as Align is considered.
A LG could think of an out of the box way to end the war; that would be working within Align to further Good's ends, beyond the will of your patron deity.Ah, but most wars are not that easy to end. If you play in some more realistic scenario with politics inspired from history most rulers have reasons for a war that a single person can't overcome so easily. If there is a war in the game that is some kind of bad idea and thus could be ended by good arguments, the rulers look like morons. Because they needed the pc to find the better solution. Thus most conflicts should be ones reasonable people would still pursue.


And I'm sure we have some Pal/PMs around.Where is the problem ? We have in Eberron (our setting) a PRE geared towards paladins named Bone Knight, that is all about leading undead in battle (for the glory of their king and to protect their homeland of course.) and getting some undead related enhancements like a pm. They can still remain good and keep things like divine grace and lay on hands

Of course it's Karnath only as it was that country that deployed larger number of the living dead to counter the massive amount of wf their enemies used in the last war.

[Alabore]

Ah, but most wars are not that easy to end.
...
Thus most conflicts should be ones reasonable people would still pursue.

I wonder if, in a realistic setting, a Paladin could retain his/her status, and still take part in the war, given how complex reasons for fighting are.

All considered, most Paladins should lose their status the moment they set foot on Stormreach.
Or given how deities work in Eberron, status should also be related to how Paladins perceived themselves, a kind of sense of guilt gauge.
I still have to wrap my head around the concept of using violence to further one's ends, while still retaining the purity of heart paladinhood allegedly requires.

Please, have a +1 Green Cookie for providing fresh insight.

:)





Where is the problem ? We have in Eberron (our setting) a PRE geared towards paladins named Bone Knight.
I find no problem with it.
I'm not relating my stance on undeath, just the common stance among players I've met.
Most of them considered necromancy Evil-aligned.
And in DDO Paladin IS being portrayed as a destroyer of Undead and Outsiders, after all.

...

As an aside, I see no problem in allowing Barbarian AND Paladin, since I don't consider Rage a chaotic trait.
They call it Righteous Fury for a reason.
And I can live with LG necromancers too - after all nothing is as well disciplined and well ordered as an army of Undead soldiers.
Maybe decaying - but not decadent.

:D

[landofshishio]

In my campaign a fallen paladin would have proably been a dead one courstesy of his/her deity and I have nver allowed nor will I ever allow evil as an option for players. and they wont here either.

Bad GM prestige / alternate exist for Evil pally in PnP

[Emili]

If anything, they could even be better in some ways due to a bit more focus and discipline in their musical endeavors - Ask almost any musician, it requires LOTS of practice and LOTS of dedication to become truly good at an instrument.

I imagine virtuoso, virtuosa, virtuosi more than practical facility, exhibitionist, outgrowth with no bounds. Musica diabolica was against the law, and an Italian 6th was considered hip for it's day. Niccolo Paganini's gifts thought to be the spur of demonic substance as they often "broke" the rules. Practice yes but all the greats from Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt to Armstrong, Coltrane, Miles, John McLaughlin , Buddy Rich, Wes Montgommery, Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Stevie Ray practiced, Yes. Had they follow the rules? No. They were rebels among thier craft and explored beyond the scope and set it set them apart. The goal of these people to present a statement in their art no matter who or what the rules said otherwise. The very nature of temperament in scale and harmonic theories are compromises which breaks the rules... and is the steps "outside" reveals a wonderful enlightning. The simple fact you're chasing emotion adheres to such.

Among musicians I cannot think of any "greats" who did not toss traditions away in such way musically and strive to change and speak out individually... to squeeze new sounds and hone unadulterated style and uniqueness from their instruments. Focus and discipline in face of practice is for sake of anything except motor skill. The best musicians stepped away from the rules of the instrument because the rules are made to be broken... time and again, to coax and eliminate the boundaries and seek new capabilities from those instruments.


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Is funny... nine times out of ten when I take this survey - What DnD character are you? (http://www.easydamus.com/character.html) it yields me a chaotic good to true nuetral elven bard. Yet, Always thought myself more conservative but then I realize it must be the influence the conservatory had upon me. (Yes, I know bloody terrible pun)

[gloopygloop]

Among musicians I cannot think of any "greats" who did not toss tradition away in such way musically and strive to change and speak out individually.


That's kind of funny, because I can't think of any "greats" who tossed the musical tradition away. Every single one of them transcended that tradition in some way, but it informed who they were as a musician in a very real and relevant way. They would not have been great in the first place if they didn't have that musical tradition to build from.

[Dark83]

I still have to wrap my head around the concept of using violence to further one's ends, while still retaining the purity of heart paladinhood allegedly requires."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
I'm pretty sure the Lord of Blades cannot be talked down or arrested without an unreasonable and inexcusable casualty rate. Non-violent methods certainly didn't work against the Third Reich, and the attempt tarnished Neville Chamberlain's reputation and legacy.

What are you supposed to do if you are faced with an enemy who is determined to destroy you and what you value, with no hope of negotiating a peace?


Of course it's Karnath only as it was that country that deployed larger number of the living dead to counter the massive amount of wf their enemies used in the last war.
The Aereni religion is based upon the veneration of the Undying Court - and they have paladins as well. So it isn't just Karrnath. :p

[Emili]

That's kind of funny, because I can't think of any "greats" who tossed the musical tradition away. Every single one of them transcended that tradition in some way, but it informed who they were as a musician in a very real and relevant way. They would not have been great in the first place if they didn't have that musical tradition to build from.
Andrés Segovia is once touted after seeing Django Reinhardt, "It's quite wonderful, where may I get the sheet music?" Do not confuse building blocks to epression. Every sinlge one of them did "it different" Miles would not have been Miles otherwise would have been "the same" as everyone else... likewise predecessors. A perfect example is american jazz none acceptance as "serious music" at first by western traditionalist due escaping structure of rules only to later be embraced by those who endevor art as the goal.

[gloopygloop]

Andrés Segovia is once touted after seeing Django Reinhardt, "It's quite wonderful, where may I get the sheet music?" Do not confuse building blocks to epression. Every sinlge one of them did "it different" Miles would not have been Miles otherwise would have been "the same" as everyone else... likewise predecessors. A perfect example is american jazz none acceptance as "serious music" at first by western traditionalist due escaping structure of rules only to later be embraced by those who endevor art as the goal.

I agree with what you're saying, but to call it rebellion or rejection seems the same as saying that a flower rebels against or rejects it's roots. It grows from them and it becomes something more than them, but everything that it grows into is defined by its roots and the dirt that holds them in place.

[Emili]

I agree with what you're saying, but to call it rebellion or rejection seems the same as saying that a flower rebels against or rejects it's roots. It grows from them and it becomes something more than them, but everything that it grows into is defined by its roots and the dirt that holds them in place.
Perception I suppose?



Lawful Good, "Crusader"
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. Those who break the rule corrected. Never stray.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, "Benefactor"
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Unswerving in change.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral, "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.

Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer"
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.




Due course of the definitions given, where would you place these people?

[gloopygloop]

Due course of the definitions given, where would you place these people?

I'd still put most of them under Law for the same reason that Monks end up there - self discipline. Creativity doesn't have to be hampered by Law.

After all, even the most revolutionary musicians never threw out all the rule - they simply replaced rules that didn't work for them with rules that allowed them to make a new form. Even John Cage doesn't completely reject rules. He just eliminated some of the rules that weren't needed and replaced some of the previous rules with new ones that better suit his style.

[Alabore]

What are you supposed to do if you are faced with an enemy who is determined to destroy you and what you value, with no hope of negotiating a peace?

I don't sincerely know.

:)

It's not the kind of threat most of us would care to face, in our adult everyday lives.
The answer to it we better never have to find out, the hard way.

...

If I were to answer, in my character self, I'd simple say: "I'd wander off, somewhere else. Let them chase me if they care".

[Missing_Minds]

Op, this will not happen. Why?

Per the agreement Turbine has with WotC, all changes have to be passed by them first for approval. WotC won't give the approval on this one.

[Emili]

I'd still put most of them under Law for the same reason that Monks end up there - self discipline. Creativity doesn't have to be hampered by Law.

After all, even the most revolutionary musicians never threw out all the rule - they simply replaced rules that didn't work for them with rules that allowed them to make a new form. Even John Cage doesn't completely reject rules. He just eliminated some of the rules that weren't needed and replaced some of the previous rules with new ones that better suit his style.
That's if you believe that only those of lawful nature the only ones with any self discipline. I always attributed monks as following strict code and not their drive or training as to them being lawful by default... one tends to imagine a monastic life as rigid beyond the scope and encompassing complete structure... not just the scope of discipling practical skills. Making your "own rules" to fit your needs does not fall sway to being "lawful" if anything it deems the opposite. By DnD definition of what lawful is actually quite similar to our own definition of what is "law"... To follow the lines and give up freedoms so that together we all follow suit for the better of all while individuality and creativity take the back seat for it. The cook follows the recipe while the chef adds the spice ... to the later the recipe is a guide but not the means to the end result.

[Dark83]

If I were to answer, in my character self, I'd simple say: "I'd wander off, somewhere else. Let them chase me if they care".

Heh, the context here though is for a Paladin where wandering off would likely make their god rather unhappy. That would probably be a justified case of Falling.

"Sauron's army threatens all of Middle Earth..." "I think I'll take a vacation." "...what?" :D



By DnD definition of what lawful(Note that I'm not disagreeing with you, but just stating for the record.)
I tend to use the definitions here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a):

In short, good and evil describe a character's ideals, and law and chaos describe the means she uses to work toward her goals.
I find that article to be rather well written. The relevant bit to the "she should get herself killed trying to not kill the enemy" view I talked about before:

Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others.Sacrificing herself so that her countrymen are killed for the sake of avoiding killing your enemies is neither a part of the Code of Conduct nor a Lawful Good act, it's an Ineffectual Stupid act.

[shores11]

/not signed

Stay as true to pen and paper rules as you can. The wishy washyness one of the posters eluded to in Eberron is only in DDO and other PC D&D games. In those as well a paladin can kill without fear of losing his/her lawful good status. However in pen and paper it is black and white in Eberron.

[Alabore]

Heh, the context here though is for a Paladin where wandering off would likely make their god rather unhappy. That would probably be a justified case of Falling.
"Sauron's army threatens all of Middle Earth..." "I think I'll take a vacation." "...what?" :D

Admittedly, I royally suck at this whole Paladin business.
No wonder these DnD tests keep claiming I'm Chaotic Neutral...

...

But you weren't asking what I'd do, if I were the Paladin.
You asked me: what would you do if some random bad guy wanted to "destroy you and what you value, with no hope of negotiating a peace".

Game conundrums don't translate well in real world ethics.
But, in the example above, a Lawful Good act would be sacrificing one's life to stall Evil, to defuse or delay War or win the Battle.

[Aesop]

telling ya the way around this is to implement and modify (slightly) the Devoted Performer Feat. Just have it allow a Paladin to take it and once he has it he can take a level of bard without changing his/her alignment. This is a WotC written and approved Feat and would not be too far out there.

The other benefit of Devoted Performer is that bard and Paladin levels stack for determining number of Bard Songs per day and Smite Evil damage. In theory you could then have a Warchanter/KotC mix... provided you could mush the prerequisites in there.

Since it costs a Feat it will only be used for niche builds as both Pally and Bard are feat starved classes. It would not break the game and it would add an option in that some people would enjoy.

This would also open the door up for other interesting Feat options



Ascetic Hunter [General]
You have gone beyond the bounds of your monastic training to incorporate new modes of bringing the unlawful to justice. Although many of your fellow monks frown on your methods, none can doubt that your diverse training has added to your ability to strike precisely and bring down your foes quickly.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, favored enemy.
Benefit: When you use an unarmed strike to deliver a stunning attack against a favored enemy, you can add one-half your favored enemy bonus on damage rolls to the DC of your stunning attempt. If you have levels in ranger and monk, those levels stack for the purpose of determining your unarmed strike damage. For example, a human 7th-level ranger/1st-level monk would deal 1d10 points of damage with her unarmed strike.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the monk and ranger classes. You must still remain lawful in order to retain your monk abilities and take monk levels. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Ascetic Knight [General]
You belong to a special order of religious monks that teaches its adherents that self-enlightenment and honorable service grow from the same well of purity. As a student of this philosophy, you have blended your training as a paladin and as a monk into one seamless whole.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, ability to smite evil.
Benefit: Your paladin and monk levels stack for the purpose of determining your unarmed strike damage. For example, a human 3rd-level paladin/1st-level monk would deal 1d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.
Your paladin and monk levels also stack when determining the extra damage dealt by your smite evil ability.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the paladin and monk classes. You must still remain lawful good in order to retain your paladin abilities and take paladin levels, and you must remain lawful in order to continue advancing as a monk. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Ascetic Mage [General]
You practice an unusual martial art that mixes self-taught spellcasting and melee attacks to great effect.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, ability to spontaneously cast 2nd-level arcane spells.
Benefit: As a swift action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, you can sacrifice one of your daily allotment of spells to add a bonus to your unarmed strike attack rolls and damage rolls for 1 round. The bonus is equal to the level of the spell sacrificed. The spell is lost as if you had cast it.
If you have levels in sorcerer and monk, those levels stack for the purpose of determining your AC bonus. For example, a human 4th-level sorcerer/1st-level monk would have a +1 bonus to AC as if she were a 5th-level monk. If you would normally be allowed to add your Wisdom bonus to AC (such as for a unarmored, unencumbered monk), you instead add your Charisma bonus (if any) to your AC.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the sorcerer and monk classes. You must still remain lawful in order to continue advancing as a monk. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Ascetic Rogue [General]
You have gone beyond the bounds of your monastic training to incorporate new modes of stealthy combat. Although your fellow monks may frown on your methods, none can doubt that your diverse training has improved your ability to strike precisely and bring down your foes quickly.
Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, sneak attack.
Benefit: When you use an unarmed strike with a sneak attack to deliver a stunning attack, you add 2 to the DC of your stunning attempt.
If you have levels in rogue and monk, those levels stack for the purpose of determining your unarmed strike damage. For example, a human 5th-level rogue/1st-level monk would deal 1d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the monk and rogue classes. You must still remain lawful in order to retain your monk abilities and take monk levels. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Devoted Inquisitor [General]
Your faithful service to your patron deity involves training and methods that many paladins consider questionable. By using the unconventional methods of rogues and assassins, you have learned to deliver devastating sneak attacks against evil foes.
Prerequisite: Smite evil, sneak attack.
Benefit: When you successfully use your sneak attack ability and your smite evil ability against the same foe in a single attack, you can potentially daze your foe. An opponent affected by both abilities must make a Will saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Cha modifier) or be dazed for 1 round.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the paladin and rogue classes. You must still remain lawful good in order to retain your paladin abilities and take paladin levels. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Devoted Performer [General]
You have foregone the pursuit of frivolous musical talents, instead entering religious training in service of honor and justice.
Prerequisite: Bardic music, smite evil.
Benefit: If you have levels in paladin and bard, those levels stack for the purpose of determining the bonus damage dealt by your smite evil ability and determining the number of times per day that you can use your bardic music. This feat does not allow additional daily uses of smite evil or bardic music abilities beyond what your class levels would normally allow.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the paladin and bard classes and may even gain additional bard levels regardless of your lawful alignment. You must still remain lawful good in order to retain your paladin abilities and take paladin levels. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.

Devoted Tracker [General]
You have found a balance between your woodland training and your devotion to religious training, blending these two aspects into one seamless whole.
Prerequisite: Track, smite evil, wild empathy.
Benefit: If you have levels in paladin and ranger, those levels stack for the purposes of determining the extra damage dealt by your smite evil ability and determining the bonus for your wild empathy class feature. This feat does not allow additional daily uses of smite evil.
If you have both the special mount and animal companion class features, you can designate your special mount as your animal companion. The mount gains all the benefits of being both your special mount and your animal companion. For instance, a 5th-level paladin/6th-level ranger's special mount would have 4 bonus Hit Dice, a +6 natural armor adjustment, +2 Strength, +1 Dexterity, two bonus tricks, and Intelligence 6, as well as the empathic link, improved evasion, share spells, share saving throws, and link special abilities.
In addition, you can multiclass freely between the paladin and ranger classes. You must still remain lawful good in order to retain your paladin abilities and take paladin levels. You still face the normal XP penalties for having multiple classes more than one level apart.



Some of these could be fun additions... some of these would need drastic tweakage to fit in the game ... but they are some official WotC feats that have potential

Aesop

[Victorhammer]

I see this as a push to get more abilities so people can solo the game easier and further distance themselves from others. The game does seam to be headed in this direction. I am not sure that is a good thing. Maybe it is and we will see guilds form with their own restrictions on what you can and can not be within the guild. Perhaps that is the way of the future. Turbine can open up the game for the power gamers to run free while guilds retain some D&D old school game feel. This works until the quest instances get modified to provide more challange for those that push the limits beyond the breaking point. Then those old school guilds get nerfed so bad they either adapt or die.
This is why there is push back because many people fear this will happen. They see it already with the bosses getting buffed.

Now I can see the bosses getting buffed as Turbines way to make the players work together more and less solo.
Yet at the same time the Artificer comes out with multiple enhancement buffs that work on top of all the buffs already in the game. Meaning the players will be stronger as a group now with an artificer in the group and maybe that is why the bosses got buffed. At any rate it is an escalation of the game which is exactly what the old school guilds with restrictions can not tolerate without change.

[gloopygloop]

That's if you believe that only those of lawful nature the only ones with any self discipline. I always attributed monks as following strict code and not their drive or training as to them being lawful by default... one tends to imagine a monastic life as rigid beyond the scope and encompassing complete structure... not just the scope of discipling practical skills. Making your "own rules" to fit your needs does not fall sway to being "lawful" if anything it deems the opposite. By DnD definition of what lawful is actually quite similar to our own definition of what is "law"... To follow the lines and give up freedoms so that together we all follow suit for the better of all while individuality and creativity take the back seat for it. The cook follows the recipe while the chef adds the spice ... to the later the recipe is a guide but not the means to the end result.

I do believe that it's possible for Lawful people to also be creative. I actually find it easier to be creative when I'm given (or when I provide for myself) a few rules to provide a framework for my creation. Mozart, Hayden, JS Bach, CPE Bach and even PDQ Bach all gave up some of their own freedoms in order to work as court musicians. I don't think that the skalds left their lords every few months when they were struck with wanderlust the way that the Player's Handbook describes. Creativity doesn't have to take a back seat to law. Good laws provide a framework for creativity to flourish.

I'm not saying that every great musician has to be lawful. I just think that greatness and creativity aren't precluded by law any more than I think that every Chaotic character must be a raging anarchist that spends all their time fighting the Man.

As for the cook comment - the only reason that someone would blindly follow a recipe is that they don't know WHY the recipe's ingredients and steps are the way they are. That comes from a lack of understanding, not a devotion to obedience to rules. I've always looked at recipes as a set of driving directions. Once you know the whole map, you can take any appropriate path you want. If you don't know the map, then you have to rely on the directions and you just don't get to your destination if you hit a roadblock. That's just a lack of training or understanding - not an indication of orientation on the Law and Chaos axis.

[PestWulf]

I personally am ok with the alignment restrictions. But I have to ask...why is there a lawful good beholder????

Cholthulzz in Ghosts of Perdition is a freaking undead Lawful Good Beholder. What does that have to do with DnD?

Is there a story there i'm missing or something? I've done my share of DnD and I've just never heard of a lawful good beholder before DDO.

[MindCake]

I do believe that it's possible for Lawful people to also be creative. I actually find it easier to be creative when I'm given (or when I provide for myself) a few rules to provide a framework for my creation. Mozart, Hayden, JS Bach, CPE Bach and even PDQ Bach all gave up some of their own freedoms in order to work as court musicians. I don't think that the skalds left their lords every few months when they were struck with wanderlust the way that the Player's Handbook describes. Creativity doesn't have to take a back seat to law. Good laws provide a framework for creativity to flourish.

I'm not saying that every great musician has to be lawful. I just think that greatness and creativity aren't precluded by law any more than I think that every Chaotic character must be a raging anarchist that spends all their time fighting the Man.

As for the cook comment - the only reason that someone would blindly follow a recipe is that they don't know WHY the recipe's ingredients and steps are the way they are. That comes from a lack of understanding, not a devotion to obedience to rules. I've always looked at recipes as a set of driving directions. Once you know the whole map, you can take any appropriate path you want. If you don't know the map, then you have to rely on the directions and you just don't get to your destination if you hit a roadblock. That's just a lack of training or understanding - not an indication of orientation on the Law and Chaos axis.

Let's say someone breaks the rules in a harmless way, and gets some interesting results.
I imagine a lawful's person reaction would be:"But that's against the rules!"/"You can't do that!"/etc
Neutral's person reaction would be:"Interesting."
Chaotic's person reaction would be:"Oh yeah? Check this one out!"

TBH, I don't know much about musics, but would your guys start chiding each other for breaking the rules?


As for them following some rules, etc. it's because chaotic does not mean stupid or random.
Imagine a door with a knob you need to turn to open it. The door is an epitome of lawful in a manner of speaking, it follows the rules strictly and consistently. Someone turns the knob and the door opens, it doesn't matter who the person is, and it doesn't matter if the door would rather have the person not pass, the door always opens.
Exploiting that property doesn't mean you're lawful, it means you're not stupid.

[gloopygloop]

Let's say someone breaks the rules in a harmless way, and gets some interesting results.
I imagine a lawful's person reaction would be:"But that's against the rules!"/"You can't do that!"/etc
Neutral's person reaction would be:"Interesting."
Chaotic's person reaction would be:"Oh yeah? Check this one out!"

TBH, I don't know much about musics, but would your guys start chiding each other for breaking the rules?


As for them following some rules, etc. it's because chaotic does not mean stupid or random.
Imagine a door with a knob you need to turn to open it. The door is an epitome of lawful in a manner of speaking, it follows the rules strictly and consistently. Someone turns the knob and the door opens, it doesn't matter who the person is, and it doesn't matter if the door would rather have the person not pass, the door always opens.
Exploiting that property doesn't mean you're lawful, it means you're not stupid.

I agree with your characterization of Chaotic. I just wish that people would stop stereotyping Lawful as slavishly devoted to rules in the same way that some people (not you) stereotype Chaotic rebels without a cause that spend most of their time talking nonsense because they're too cool for rational thought.

I figure that someone Lawful in the situation that you described would probably be mildly uncomfortable, but there's a good chance that they'd do it anyway. Think about all the people who go over the speed limit. When you go out on the highways, way less than 1% of the population actually follows the posted speed limits. Even if only 25% of the population is Lawful, that still means that Lawful people are completely willing to disregard laws that they consider unimportant.