character alignment at creation

[silinteresting]

ok having never really played d&d and only played ddo(oh and baldur's).
how is it that a bard cant be lawful good yet a pale master can be?

ive been playing this game for a few years now and theres some builds
id love to try like a bard pali monk hybred but due to restrictions i cant.
is there somthing writen somewhere that states this is a no no.

youve got to admit, well to my way of thinking is that a pale master is the
epitome of evil or am i just thinking of this from a hollywood perspective.

surely tho a bard can be lawful good, playing there songs up front leading
there group of warriors into battle for a righteous cause.

anyway its just a thought i had while playing with rons and his teams character planner.

ok so any help on the above would be cool as to why, why not etc etc

your friend sil :)

[AzB]

ok having never really played d&d and only played ddo(oh and baldur's).
how is it that a bard cant be lawful good yet a pale master can be?

ive been playing this game for a few years now and theres some builds
id love to try like a bard pali monk hybred but due to restrictions i cant.
is there somthing writen somewhere that states this is a no no.

youve got to admit, well to my way of thinking is that a pale master is the
epitome of evil or am i just thinking of this from a hollywood perspective.

surely tho a bard can be lawful good, playing there songs up front leading
there group of warriors into battle for a righteous cause.

anyway its just a thought i had while playing with rons and his teams character planner.

ok so any help on the above would be cool as to why, why not etc etc

your friend sil :)

It's been many years since I played pnp, but I'm pretty sure I had a lawful neutral bard.

Since ddo is more video game than rpg, I'm thinking that the alignment restriction is for play balance. Because the bard is clearly way overpowered already, if you could multiclass it with monk or pally, no one would ever play anything else.

[Vellrad]

It's been many years since I played pnp, but I'm pretty sure I had a lawful neutral bard.

Since ddo is more video game than rpg, I'm thinking that the alignment restriction is for play balance. Because the bard is clearly way overpowered already, if you could multiclass it with monk or pally, no one would ever play anything else.

In ancient rules of D&D bard had to be partially neutral.
In rules on which DDO was based, bard can't be lawful, as he can't work bound by laws.

[silinteresting]

this has got me thinking, so i decided to scoure the internet and
found this on the dnd wiki.

Bard, Tome (3.5e Class)
Allowed Alignments Lawful Good +, Lawful Neutral +, Lawful Evil +, Neutral Good +, Neutral +, Neutral Evil +, Chaotic Good +, Chaotic Neutral + and Chaotic Evil

also on wikipedia for bard

Alignment Any neutral (1st and 2nd editions)
Any non-lawful (3rd and 3.5 editions)

i think this may get confusing :(

oh well your friend sil :)

[silinteresting]

In ancient rules of D&D bard had to be partially neutral.
In rules on which DDO was based, bard can't be lawful, as he can't work bound by laws.

ah! so is there a set of rules on which ddo is based?

sorry for sounding ignorant but if you dont ask knowledge can not
be aquired.

your friend sil :)

[Lonnbeimnech]

In ancient rules of D&D bard had to be partially neutral.
In rules on which DDO was based, bard can't be lawful, as he can't work bound by laws.

Unless you pirate his albums, then he'll sue your a$$.

[MindCakes]

Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, the game Dungeons and Dragons Online is based on, the alignment is a bit more complicated than good vs non-good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm).

Notably, the issue of good vs evil is quite separate from issue of lawful vs chaotic.
And lawful is not necessarily the same as following the law.

[Uska]

this has got me thinking, so i decided to scoure the internet and
found this on the dnd wiki.

Bard, Tome (3.5e Class)
Allowed Alignments Lawful Good +, Lawful Neutral +, Lawful Evil +, Neutral Good +, Neutral +, Neutral Evil +, Chaotic Good +, Chaotic Neutral + and Chaotic Evil

also on wikipedia for bard

Alignment Any neutral (1st and 2nd editions)
Any non-lawful (3rd and 3.5 editions)

i think this may get confusing :(

oh well your friend sil :)

you got some bad info there bards directly from the 3.5 phb any nonlawful alignment.

[droid327]

If bards were lawful, they'd probably feel compelled to get a real job and stop being wandering hippies with guitars :)

[Dagolar]

Bards are inexplicably open-ended in DDO.
On the flipside, being based on the Eberron setting- the only setting to hard restrict Paladins to Lawful Good only [though none of the Player's Handbooks per edition list non-LG variants, the setting books and various class books (and earlier on, Dragon Magazine) do]- Paladins are overly strict.
Sadly, FR's inclusion has thus far not affected that element any.

As for Pale Masters-
The study of death is not inherently evil in D&D, dependent on utilization. Someone who respects the dead and learns necromancy to help put the dead to rest, or wishes to learn more about death for helping the living, or who follows a lawful god of death (See: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Kelemvor ) all can be lawful, or good, and research death.
After all, a lot of medicinal knowledge was gained throughout history by way of the study of death and utilization of it.. with magic thrown into the picture, obviously things'd get a bit more complex.

Now, more interesting, assassins aren't restricted on alignment in 3rd edition either- after all, they could be lawful servants of their king, goodly people whom believe their efforts are for the betterment of the people of the kingdom.

[DrakHar]

ok having never really played d&d and only played ddo(oh and baldur's).
how is it that a bard cant be lawful good yet a pale master can be?

ive been playing this game for a few years now and theres some builds
id love to try like a bard pali monk hybred but due to restrictions i cant.
is there somthing writen somewhere that states this is a no no.

youve got to admit, well to my way of thinking is that a pale master is the
epitome of evil or am i just thinking of this from a hollywood perspective.

surely tho a bard can be lawful good, playing there songs up front leading
there group of warriors into battle for a righteous cause.

anyway its just a thought i had while playing with rons and his teams character planner.

ok so any help on the above would be cool as to why, why not etc etc

your friend sil :)

Law has nothing to do with good or evil.
The best evil characters are mostly lawful evil, sometimes neutral evil. However, I will agree. A monk should be lawful. A barbarian should not. I see no reason a bard shouldn't be able to be, especially ones who work closely with nobility, etc.

[Uska]

Bards are inexplicably open-ended in DDO.
On the flipside, being based on the Eberron setting- the only setting to hard restrict Paladins to Lawful Good only [though none of the Player's Handbooks per edition list non-LG variants, the setting books and various class books (and earlier on, Dragon Magazine) do]- Paladins are overly strict.
Sadly, FR's inclusion has thus far not affected that element any.

As for Pale Masters-
The study of death is not inherently evil in D&D, dependent on utilization. Someone who respects the dead and learns necromancy to help put the dead to rest, or wishes to learn more about death for helping the living, or who follows a lawful god of death (See: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Kelemvor ) all can be lawful, or good, and research death.
After all, a lot of medicinal knowledge was gained throughout history by way of the study of death and utilization of it.. with magic thrown into the picture, obviously things'd get a bit more complex.

Now, more interesting, assassins aren't restricted on alignment in 3rd edition either- after all, they could be lawful servants of their king, goodly people whom believe their efforts are for the betterment of the people of the kingdom.

Incorrect sir by the 3.x phb paladins have to be lawful good only I think you might be quoting 4E don't know for sure I don't own that trash and in early editions paladins not only had to be lawful good they had to be human 3.x changed that. Eberron is not the only setting to restrict paladins do better research before you try spouting off roules

[silinteresting]

If bards were lawful, they'd probably feel compelled to get a real job and stop being wandering hippies with guitars :)

i suppose this says it all lol.


i guess things are just the way they are, maybe in future editions
bard alignment will change who knows. but it was just a thought i had
as im sure many others have had before me.

your friend sil :)

[Skavenaps]

ok having never really played d&d and only played ddo(oh and baldur's).
how is it that a bard cant be lawful good yet a pale master can be?

ive been playing this game for a few years now and theres some builds
id love to try like a bard pali monk hybred but due to restrictions i cant.
is there somthing writen somewhere that states this is a no no.

youve got to admit, well to my way of thinking is that a pale master is the
epitome of evil or am i just thinking of this from a hollywood perspective.

surely tho a bard can be lawful good, playing there songs up front leading
there group of warriors into battle for a righteous cause.

anyway its just a thought i had while playing with rons and his teams character planner.

ok so any help on the above would be cool as to why, why not etc etc

your friend sil :)

hmm Lawfull and Evil are diferent things..

[starhawk_6699]

Just spent the last half hour tpring in info from Players Handbook copyright 1978 only to have the Forum monster eat it.
Sorry.
Turbined once again.

[starhawk_6699]

In ancient rules of D&D bard had to be partially neutral.
In rules on which DDO was based, bard can't be lawful, as he can't work bound by laws.

As per PH '78 edition, p117 "They must always remain neutral, but can be chaotic, evil, good or lawful neutral if they wish."
Guess this changed in later editions tho.

[AzB]

If bards were lawful, they'd probably feel compelled to get a real job and stop being wandering hippies with guitars :)

They're lutes.

And some bards could be bound by a brotherhood of hippies with lutes giving them lawful tendencies.

I think it's pretty clear that the entire reason is play balance. Bards are already *way* too powerful. To multiclass them with monks would be the end of the interwebz. They would implode. That's the real reason.

[Uska]

As per PH '78 edition, p117 "They must always remain neutral, but can be chaotic, evil, good or lawful neutral if they wish."
Guess this changed in later editions tho.

That is 1st ed AD&D and has nothing to do with us that bard is very very extremely completely and utterly different then all bards that follow that one started as a rogue I think then was a fighter then finally a bard in that edition only lawful good humans with certain stats could be paladins also rangers had to be good as well and druids were true neutral I would have loved ddo to be based on 1st ed it would have changed things greately

[starhawk_6699]

That is 1st ed AD&D and has nothing to do with us that bard is very very extremely completely and utterly different then all bards that follow that one started as a rogue I think then was a fighter then finally a bard in that edition only lawful good humans with certain stats could be paladins also rangers had to be good as well and druids were true neutral I would have loved ddo to be based on 1st ed it would have changed things greately

Yeah those were the good old days of D&D.

Actually Bards started as Fighters then changed to Thieves between level 5 and 8 then to Druid at level 5-8. Then you started as a true Bard.
They were incredibly difficult to get in the first place since you needed to have 15 in Str, Dex, and Cha, also had to have 12 Int and 10 Con.
They were considered overpowered by alot of DM.
Most of their best abilities are useless in DDO. They had language skill and item knowledge and Legend Lore (% chance to identify magic items). Valuable tools in a setting were stuff isn't labled for your convience.
Not to mention Mutli-class were EXTREMELY limited by race restrictions and level limits in this edition.
Always wanted to play a Bard back then but never could get the scores for one. :(
As you say todays Bards are a whole different creature. Still I like playing mine, its a fun class to play most of the time.

[deuxanes]

As it is now DDO (and quite a few other older D&D games) only implemented static alignments. This prohibits certain multiclass options. Pro side is that it makes implementation easier. But it reduces some build options.


By the D&D rules itself alignment isn't a "static stat" but will change over time due to the actions of a character. One could start a character with a certain alignment. Over (game) time the alignment might change to allow a multiclass option which wasn't allowed initially (e.g. switch from paladin to bard). But it comes with a price. You might lose abilities of your former class or never again level in your former class. The exact repercussions depend on on the actual classes and their roleplaying backgrounds (e.g. a Paladin that is no longer lawful good might be considered as a fallen paladin). On the other hand you could start as bard and do good deeds and eventually accept a paladin's calling (the order in which you train certain classes becomes important).

[AzB]

Yeah those were the good old days of D&D.

Actually Bards started as Fighters then changed to Thieves between level 5 and 8 then to Druid at level 5-8. Then you started as a true Bard.
They were incredibly difficult to get in the first place since you needed to have 15 in Str, Dex, and Cha, also had to have 12 Int and 10 Con.
They were considered overpowered by alot of DM.
Most of their best abilities are useless in DDO. They had language skill and item knowledge and Legend Lore (% chance to identify magic items). Valuable tools in a setting were stuff isn't labled for your convience.
Not to mention Mutli-class were EXTREMELY limited by race restrictions and level limits in this edition.
Always wanted to play a Bard back then but never could get the scores for one. :(
As you say todays Bards are a whole different creature. Still I like playing mine, its a fun class to play most of the time.

I played one in a fairly long lasting campaign with a highly intelligent DM who was about a fair a person as someone could be. I think he hated that character because it was so bloody good, but I worked at it. I even fought florentine style (now called dual wielding) way before anyone had even heard of such a thing. Sure, the rogue was a better rogue, and the dwarf was a better tank, and the cleric was a better healer. But if you asked any of those characters who they would pick if they could have one toon covering their backs, it was the bard.

We had a really good role playing rogue in the group as well. He always hated dungeons as the risk (for him) was too high compared to the payoff. He and I, and a couple other folks ended up drifting off into an above ground thieving campaign. We taxed the DM's imagination, but it was great fun. We would sometimes spends weeks planning something and have it play out in a couple hours. But that was the beauty of AD&D 1.0, it was a lot more open ended.

Bards in DDO have nearly all their special abilities neutered by video game mechanics. Red names are always immune to anything a bard can do to them, except swing a sword. That ain't right. But the fact that they're always immune to assassination, FoD, sneakiness, charms, illusions, undead turning, etc is wrong as well. If the red name needs to be immune to something, it should be circumstantial... that is based on environment, items he may be using, (and might be looted after his demise!) or by the security he surrounds himself with whether it's traps, anti rogue characters, an army, or whatever. The red name boss mechanic is a lazy derivative of early video games. It rewards high DPS characters, and either weakens or completely castrates character classes that are not dps based. Less imagination and problem solving and MOAR sword swinging!

[Charononus]

The part that always bugged me about paladins in dnd is that a paladin is essentially a holy warrior for a god. Gods in dnd can be lawful chaotic good evil and everything in between. To me it would make more sense for a pally to have to match their deity's alignment not just restricted to lg.

[droid327]

The part that always bugged me about paladins in dnd is that a paladin is essentially a holy warrior for a god. Gods in dnd can be lawful chaotic good evil and everything in between. To me it would make more sense for a pally to have to match their deity's alignment not just restricted to lg.

Which is why Bladeforged have bugged me since they were introduced :) And Drow have, since always...

You're a LG devotee of a NE deity...

[Uska]

Yeah those were the good old days of D&D.

Actually Bards started as Fighters then changed to Thieves between level 5 and 8 then to Druid at level 5-8. Then you started as a true Bard.
They were incredibly difficult to get in the first place since you needed to have 15 in Str, Dex, and Cha, also had to have 12 Int and 10 Con.
They were considered overpowered by alot of DM.
Most of their best abilities are useless in DDO. They had language skill and item knowledge and Legend Lore (% chance to identify magic items). Valuable tools in a setting were stuff isn't labled for your convience.
Not to mention Mutli-class were EXTREMELY limited by race restrictions and level limits in this edition.
Always wanted to play a Bard back then but never could get the scores for one. :(
As you say todays Bards are a whole different creature. Still I like playing mine, its a fun class to play most of the time.


I really liked it back when I first played dnd and we didn't know if something was magic or what its effects truly were it was even fun getting the occasional cursed item and not knowing it. I tried having a bard back in the old days never quite made it all the way . I have one now but don't play her much that she has hit 20 but then I don't play much at all right now to much home work for my MS. But bards are good and yes they are fun.

[Uska]

The part that always bugged me about paladins in dnd is that a paladin is essentially a holy warrior for a god. Gods in dnd can be lawful chaotic good evil and everything in between. To me it would make more sense for a pally to have to match their deity's alignment not just restricted to lg.

I have always thought that the other alignments should have had their own special champion back in the day and yes I know about the dragon article that had them but they were for most part unbalanced.