Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    454

    Default character alignment at creation

    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

  2. #2
    Community Member AzB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silinteresting View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Community Member Vellrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miasto Stołeczne Warszawa (The Capital City of Warsaw)
    Posts
    6,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AzB View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    454

    Default

    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

  5. #5
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vellrad View Post
    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

  6. #6
    Community Member Lonnbeimnech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vellrad View Post
    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$$.

  7. #7
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    420

    Default

    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.

    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.

  8. #8
    Founder & Hero Uska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    22,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silinteresting View Post
    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.

    The ANTI-Realms FANBOI NUKE THE REALMS ITS THE ONLY REAL WAY TO BE SURE

  9. #9
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,018

    Default

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

  10. #10
    Community Member Dagolar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeraphim View Post
    Fly? That would break every quest in the game. You would see folks falling from the sky in Korthos and dying. It would be a rain of newbs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Yeah. It's not "we nuked the city from orbit", it's "the city experienced a brief population drop". Check.

  11. #11
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    913

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silinteresting View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Founder & Hero Uska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    22,931

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Dagolar View Post
    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

    The ANTI-Realms FANBOI NUKE THE REALMS ITS THE ONLY REAL WAY TO BE SURE

  13. #13
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid327 View Post
    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

  14. #14
    Community Member Skavenaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silinteresting View Post
    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..

  15. #15
    Community Member starhawk_6699's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    149

    Default :((

    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.
    "Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." -- George Bernard Shaw

  16. #16
    Community Member starhawk_6699's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vellrad View Post
    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.
    "Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." -- George Bernard Shaw

  17. #17
    Community Member AzB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid327 View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Founder & Hero Uska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    22,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starhawk_6699 View Post
    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

    The ANTI-Realms FANBOI NUKE THE REALMS ITS THE ONLY REAL WAY TO BE SURE

  19. #19
    Community Member starhawk_6699's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uska View Post
    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.
    "Some men see things as they are and say why - I dream things that never were and say why not." -- George Bernard Shaw

  20. #20
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    163

    Default

    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).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload