Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nivenus" data-source="post: 5799231" data-attributes="member: 71756">I'd prefer that they are required to be nongood, personally. I'm cool with morally gray assassins alongside morally dark ones. In fact, I'd say that's a stronger archetype.I kind of agree with you on this one, but many people feel differently (including the designers).Logical. After all, the original bards were also usually keepers of tradition and ancient laws, which fits into the traditionally prohibited lawful alignments.I kind of like the "must be some kind of neutral" alignment restriction, but I'll admit it can come off as metagame-y. I think that if you're going to have druids as a separate class from clerics than druids shouldn't be required to worship deities - therefore no alignment by deity restrictions.It seems logical on the surface, but the Sith = CE monks is to me a persuasive argument. Besides, when it comes down to it, monks are really just based on kung fu action heroes, which, as often as not, fit into the lone wandered apart from society that was once used to justify bards as a solely non-lawful class. So I'd say let them be any alignment if you're going to have any restrictions at all.This falls into the unfortunate trap, however, of defining law and good as more or less the same thing. Why should a paladin be allowed to be lawful or good? If we're going to water down the paladin's traditional alignment restraint but not turn them into "martial paragons of a particular deity" archetype, then it makes more sense to require them to be lawful or to require them to be good, but not make it an either/or arrangement.Otherwise, you're basically just saying that law = good and therefore all paladins are just a subset of lawful good.I'm cool with this.Rogues are difficult because they've never had a clear archetypes. Thieves, I can see being chaotic or nonlawful by default. But spies? Or diplomats? Or acrobats? All of these are archetypes that have been picked up by rogues at one point or another and all come with their own implied alignment range. So, unless they're going to narrow down the definition of the rogue, I'd say leave them as available to any alignment.I have a bit of a problem with this because, really, warlocks don't worship the being they form a pact with - they're just making a deal in exchange for power. It means no more or no less to a warlock than any other person under contract to any other kind of authority - they don't necessarily believe in the being's cause or idolize them. Hell, the warlock may even dislike their pact giver.Plus, it makes pacts mutually exclusive, which I don't really like. Powerful warlocks should be able to make pacts with several different kind of beings, like Ammon Jerro in Neverwinter Nights 2: demons, devils, fey, aberrations, whatever. But by this rule a demonic pact and a diabolic one would be mutually exclusive. Again, the warlock doesn't is devoted to their pact giver, they're merely under contract.However, clerics actually only have to be within one step of their  deity's alignment. So that might be more palatable and I do understand the desire to prevent CG characters from making a deal with the devil as one example.Seems unnecessary really. Many real illusionists could qualify as lawful, IMO.Depends on the setting's view of necromancy. Sure, you're defiling a body, but if you're doing no harm to the immortal soul than why would it be evil? In Planescape, for example, the dustmen are canonically neutral in alignment but they routinely use undead creatures like zombies. It's viewed by many as disturbing but not particularly evil, generally speaking.Depends on the writer.<img src="http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/batman-alignment.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></blockquote>

Verification