Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6546661" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well let me see if I can help with that much, at least.Because the ranger class was based on the character of Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings books. Second best analouge would be Robin Hood. Both of whom, inarguably, are &quot;the good guy&quot; fighting against evil. That what the class was [originally] created be.In fact they are...or were. Pre-3e, there was no &quot;rogue&quot; class. Until 2e, all &quot;rogues&quot; were actually a THIEF. In 2e the term &quot;Rogue&quot; was used for a class group. Both Thieves and Bards were Rogue classes...and, I believe bards were stipulated as having to be neutral (but I think could be lawful neutral if they wanted...memory fails me). So, in fact, YES they were all thieves...if not actively &quot;breaking the law&quot; at the moment, were certainly not against the idea. Saying they were prohibited from being &quot;lawful&quot; made all the sense in the world.Quite right. As only some gods should. Only deities that were interested in virtues, civilization and the [relative] &quot;peace&quot; of a society of law, vigorously trained in a disciplined world view of Good and Order could empower champions that were &quot;Paladins.&quot;Sure, any deity could have a &quot;champion&quot;. Does your champion have a direct line to divine powers by their sheer pure virtues and valorous spirit? Oh no? Not disciplined enough for that, huh? Chaos only cares for itself, does it? Evil only seeks destruction of the Good? That's too bad. My champion does.It does seem 5e is trying to do so in an unspoken way as well, yes. Not nearly enough to my liking, but it's there. Devotion for the traditional &quot;Lawful Good&quot; types, the &quot;Neutral&quot; Ancients and the &quot;Chaotic&quot; &quot;anything goes to achieve my goal&quot; Vengeance guys.They are only a waste of time to those who see them as a tethering restriction instead of a parameter for roleplay. Which, granted, is many many folks these days of both new and old schoolers and, basically, just anyone who wants [their character] to behave any way they choose.The same as class/race restrictions (which I use a few of still to this day), level limits (which I do not use), or any other sort of limitation...a 4-letter word in RPGs for the past decade or so, it seems. My guess is that it's because we are in the immediate gratification computer age of &quot;I should get to play whatever I want, right now [i.e. from level 1], without any restriction or consequence.&quot; There are, undoubtedly, several other factors but that's the biggest I see.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6546661, member: 92511"] Well let me see if I can help with that much, at least. Because the ranger class was based on the character of Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings books. Second best analouge would be Robin Hood. Both of whom, inarguably, are "the good guy" fighting against evil. That what the class was [originally] created be. In fact they are...or were. Pre-3e, there was no "rogue" class. Until 2e, all "rogues" were actually a THIEF. In 2e the term "Rogue" was used for a class group. Both Thieves and Bards were Rogue classes...and, I believe bards were stipulated as having to be neutral (but I think could be lawful neutral if they wanted...memory fails me). So, in fact, YES they were all thieves...if not actively "breaking the law" at the moment, were certainly not against the idea. Saying they were prohibited from being "lawful" made all the sense in the world. Quite right. As only some gods should. Only deities that were interested in virtues, civilization and the [relative] "peace" of a society of law, vigorously trained in a disciplined world view of Good and Order could empower champions that were "Paladins." Sure, any deity could have a "champion". Does [I]your[/I] champion have a direct line to divine powers by their sheer pure virtues and valorous spirit? Oh no? Not disciplined enough for that, huh? Chaos only cares for itself, does it? Evil only seeks destruction of the Good? That's too bad. My champion does. It does seem 5e is trying to do so in an unspoken way as well, yes. Not nearly enough to my liking, but it's there. Devotion for the traditional "Lawful Good" types, the "Neutral" Ancients and the "Chaotic" "anything goes to achieve my goal" Vengeance guys. They are only a waste of time to those who see them as a tethering restriction instead of a parameter for roleplay. Which, granted, is many many folks these days of both new and old schoolers and, basically, just anyone who wants [their character] to behave any way they choose. The same as class/race restrictions (which I use a few of still to this day), level limits (which I do not use), or any other sort of limitation...a 4-letter word in RPGs for the past decade or so, it seems. My guess is that it's because we are in the immediate gratification computer age of "I should get to play whatever I want, [I]right now [/I][i.e. from level 1], without any restriction or consequence." There are, undoubtedly, several other factors but that's the biggest I see. [/QUOTE]

Verification