Bards, paladins, rangers and battle spells

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
21

[b]Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

   Well, sorry to say that, but bards were always my first characters (they have an aspect in life so very similar to my own!), but both 2e and 3e seem to take something out of them: a bard in 2e would have to be very careful, or he would be one of the most vulnerable persons in play; and sincerely, how could a shield hinder his performance, when a suit of armour or weapon could not? One of those times where mechanic went over flavour and realism...

As for 3e? Well, finally balanced out abilities concerning his music, liked the sorcerer-like way of casting spells, but hated the change in alignment! Why any non-lawful? Silly people…
[/b]

In 2nd edition, Illusion spells specifically required a lot of elaborate gestures for somantic components - this alone would make the transition to why bards don’t use shields. In 3rd ed a bard can use a shield and wear any type of armor he just suffers the arcane spell failure chance of any arcane caster. A bard just doesn’t start with the applicable feats to use shields or wear anytype of armor, but can pick them up later.

In 2nd ed a bad had to have one aspect of his alignment remain neutral so the change to any non-lawful isn’t that big a jump and the explanation given in the PHB makes sense for it.

Note that in 3rd ed bard spells always require a verbal component which IMO also makes a lot of sense for a music driven spell caster.

22

[b]Originally posted by irdeggman
In 2nd edition, Illusion spells specifically required a lot of elaborate gestures for somantic components - this alone would make the transition to why bards don’t use shields. In 3rd ed a bard can use a shield and wear any type of armor he just suffers the arcane spell failure chance of any arcane caster. A bard just doesn’t start with the applicable feats to use shields or wear anytype of armor, but can pick them up later.

In 2nd ed a bad had to have one aspect of his alignment remain neutral so the change to any non-lawful isn’t that big a jump and the explanation given in the PHB makes sense for it.

Note that in 3rd ed bard spells always require a verbal component which IMO also makes a lot of sense for a music driven spell caster.[/b]

While it is true that illusions need a lot of complicated gestures, the explanation behind the impossibility of wearing shield in 2e was the fact that he could not perform, aka use his music related abilities; it said nothing of his spell casting ability, which in 2e was automatically hampered by the use of armour.

As for the alignment change, I am sorry to have to point this out, but there is a big difference! The old alignments represented the possibility of being lawful (LN), while the new ones allow for extreme alignments (CG and CE).

And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that bards should always sing to cast spells. Birthright novels’ bards always hummed or sung whenver they would cast a spell.

23

[b]Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

As for the alignment change, I am sorry to have to point this out, but there is a big difference! The old alignments represented the possibility of being lawful (LN), while the new ones allow for extreme alignments (CG and CE).
[/b]

And also CN which is also a pretty broad extreme, LN to CN that is. As I recall the 2nd restriction was one aspect must remain neutral which would yield the folowing possibilities; LN, NG, NN, NE and CN while the 3rd ed possibilities are: NG, NN, NE, CG, CN and CE. Pretty much of a wash as far as I can see, both versions allow “extreme” alignments.

24

Originally posted by irdeggman
And also CN which is also a pretty broad extreme, LN to CN that is. As I recall the 2nd restriction was one aspect must remain neutral which would yield the folowing possibilities; LN, NG, NN, NE and CN while the 3rd ed possibilities are: NG, NN, NE, CG, CN and CE. Pretty much of a wash as far as I can see, both versions allow “extreme” alignments.

It seems you do not understand what I mean… If all other alignments except for TN where thought of as “extreme”, then there would be no reason, for example, for druids to be able to take on the NG, LN, CN, and NE alignments!

Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no “neutral” element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

25

And another thing I forgot to mention: the old-style, 2e alignment restriction represented the bards’ tendencies to be more detached. All of the “extreme” alignments represented a certain attachment to an ideology or attitude that is much stronger than that of the “neutral” alignments.

Anyway, as for Battle Spells, it would be better if they were totally different spells with completely different effects. Not just pumped up versions of existing spells that require more time to cast or whatever.

26

[b]Originally posted by RaspK_FOG

Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no “neutral” element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.[/b]

That’s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG or LG isn’t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is… :wink:

27

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:
> Anyway, as for Battle Spells, it would be better if they were totally
> different spells with completely different effects. Not just pumped up
> versions of existing spells that require more time to cast or whatever.

Ive been pondering some battle-useful spells. There are quite a few already- area effect damage spells, entangle, illusions, etc. But Id
think some would have been developed specifically for battles over the
centuries.

For instance, Wall of Force is a 5th level spell. A Line of Force, as a
third or fourth level spell, which evokes an unbreakable rope-thin line of
force of length 10 per caster level, is almost useless in a dungeon, but in a large scale battle, it would effectively prevent charges through it, and possibly stop horses from passing it at all (a man could duck it, a horse wouldnt be able to go over or under if it was set at mid-chest
height).

Just flipping around the PHB, Scare would be devestating to a line of
cavalry (horses are under the HD limit), and it`s only 2nd level.

Daniel McSorley

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

28

Sean K. Reynolds has written an article “War Spells” in the new Dragon. The
whole issue is war themed - handy for BR.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

29

[b]Originally posted by Ariadne

   [quote][b][i]Originally posted by RaspK_FOG[/i]

Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no “neutral” element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.[/b]

That’s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG or LG isn’t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is… :wink:
[/b][/quote]

That’s pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

30

> Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no “neutral”
> element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

  • That`s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG
  • or LG isn`t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is… :wink:

That`s pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme

alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty

much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

We should distingush between in-character and out-of-character analysis
here. One analyis observes that the alignment chart typically has a middle
and an edge, another analysis takes a position on the chart and then notices
that some positions are nearer to it than others. These are different forms
of analysis for different purposes. When were discussing role-play, the subjective analysis is the better one. When were discussing game
mechanics, the objective analysys is the better one.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

31

[b]Originally posted by kgauck

> Extreme alignments are all the alignments that have no “neutral”
> element, that is, the LG, CG, LE, and CE alignments.

  • That`s always from the point of view. For an NG character CG
  • or LG isn`t an extreme alignment, but LN, CN, LE, NE or CE is… :wink:

That`s pretty much exactly where I was coming from. Extreme

alignments are those that are most in opposition to each other - pretty

much any lawful and any chaotic, any good and any evil, etc.

We should distingush between in-character and out-of-character analysis
here. One analyis observes that the alignment chart typically has a middle
and an edge, another analysis takes a position on the chart and then notices
that some positions are nearer to it than others. These are different forms
of analysis for different purposes. When were discussing role-play, the subjective analysis is the better one. When were discussing game
mechanics, the objective analysys is the better one.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[/b]

Exactly my point! “Extreme alignments” is a game mechanics term, reffering to the alignments that recide on the far edges of the law-vs-chaos axis and the good-vs-evil axis. These are LE, CE, CG and LG.

Furtermore, I really liked what has been told (see previous posts) concerning the application of excisting themes or spells in battle. “Scare the horses” and “Line of Force” rock!

32

I remember reading way back in the day some stuff about how the Law-Chaos
dichotomy of the alignment system could in some ways disturb the Good-Evil
aspect of alignments. That is, a character who was lawful good could not
necessarily be as good as a character who was neutral good because his
lawfulness in many ways pulled him away from goodness. A very lawful
character, for instance, would be willing to make the occasional sacrifice
of an individual lawbreaker (or accused lawbreaker) for the sake of
upholding the law (in a legal sense) itself. Legality and honor are highly
important to a lawful good person, where a neutral good person would always
look for the absolute good regardless of whether that good had a chaotic
influence or a lawful one.

In such an interpretation (which I believe was 1e–though Id have to look it up if anyone really wants a reference) there is no alignment that is more extreme than any other. A character might be "more lawful" than another but the nature of alignment itself isnt such that the alignments
themselves exist on extremes.

In Monte Cook`s Book of Hallowed Might he has a brief section about
assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. The all exist
on a scale from 1-9 or so with various numbers representing how much the
character embraces that alignment. A character who was L3G9, for instance,
might refuse to harm any living thing as part of his “G9” and genuinely
respect all authority figures as part of his L3. However, to be L4 or
better the character would have to be willing to see one person killed or
injured if it helps a large number of people. That starts contradicting
the G9 aspect of the character, making for a moral quandary that is not
resolvable within the scope of the G9 part of his alignment.

As an interesting extension on such a system, one could make those numbers
a “point value” rather than a simple assessment and dole them out as a
reward during play. That way characters would have to “level up” into
particular goodness/evil or law/chaotic in the same way they gain
powers. Since those aspects of alignment in D&D have in many ways actual
material effects that might make some sense, particularly in a campaign in
which alignment was to play a major part.

In effect, I think this is a much more realistic (if I can use that word
without drawing too many smirks) way of treating alignment since it
addresses some issues that many people seem to overlook or purposefully
ignore–that the perpendicular aspects of alignment are in contradiction to
one another. They do not contradict as directly as the ones that exist on
the same line, but they are influences.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

33

[b]Originally posted by geeman:
In Monte Cook`s Book of Hallowed Might he has a brief section about
assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. The all exist
on a scale from 1-9 or so with various numbers representing how much the
character embraces that alignment. A character who was L3G9, for instance,
might refuse to harm any living thing as part of his “G9” and genuinely
respect all authority figures as part of his L3. However, to be L4 or
better the character would have to be willing to see one person killed or
injured if it helps a large number of people. That starts contradicting
the G9 aspect of the character, making for a moral quandary that is not
resolvable within the scope of the G9 part of his alignment.

[/b]

I really liked the Book of Hallowed Might - and that element is one of those variant rules I want to incorporate in some form. The main downside is that it adds a bit to the bookkeeping side, the upside is that it is a way to mechanically award role-playing, beyond simply giving XP. The system also reminds me a bit of Humanity or the other paths in Vampire.

Beyond that, though, there’s a couple of feats - Accolade and Adoubement, that I’d consider highly appropriate for Birthright campaigns.

Overall, top-notch D&D content which I think’d be appropriate for most campaigns.

34

At 03:04 AM 6/12/2003 +0200, Mark Aurel wrote:

>I really liked the Book of Hallowed Might - and that element is one of
>those variant rules I want to incorporate in some form. The main downside
>is that it adds a bit to the bookkeeping side, the upside is that it is a
>way to mechanically award role-playing, beyond simply giving XP. The
>system also reminds me a bit of Humanity or the other paths in Vampire.
>
>Beyond that, though, there`s a couple of feats - Accolade and Adoubement,

that Id consider highly appropriate for Birthright campaigns. > >Overall, top-notch D&D content which I thinkd be appropriate for most
campaigns.

Yeah, its got some very interesting stuff in it. Particularly as to neutral good and chaotic good paladins, the feats (as you mention) and some of the stuff regarding new spells. The alignment section is intriguing and makes me wonder about how it might be incorporated into a game. Personally, I dont like the alignment system much all by itself. I
prefer a system of allegiances rather than alignment as it is more
versatile. One could, however, extend the “point value” or “numerical
rating” system of the alignment system proposed by MC into an allegiance
system. One could be Evil(4), Ghoere(3) and Lawful(2).

Those numbers might represent the overall attitude of the character as
determined by the player, but Im starting to like the idea that one has a certain amount of points based on character level and they are distributed by the player after some discussion with the DM. After accomplishing a mission in support of a particular organization a character might level up and point a point into his allegiance to that organization should the player and the DM think it warranted. Those numbers might also effect things like Diplomacy actions or other effects normally reserved for the reputation score. At least, thats the kind of direction I`m thinking this
stuff my go in my homebrew.

As you note it does create something of a bookkeeping issue. In general, I
dont much worry about that kind of thing when it comes to the "non-play" periods of the game. That is, character generation and after the adventuring portion of play when one doles out rewards. Anything that causes play to slow is a problem, but if it occurs during the bookends of play then the bookkeeping isnt such an issue.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

35

----- Original Message -----
From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:00 PM

> A character who was lawful good could not necessarily be as good
> as a character who was neutral good because his lawfulness in many
> ways pulled him away from goodness.

The Star Trek RPG recomended these kinds of moral conflicts as one of the
central recuring themes of a good Trek campaign Any time you can posit
competing goods you can give meat and drink to good role-players. I see
Haelyn as a particularly ethically concerned sect (Wisdom based, law, the
possibility of LE and CG priests) and have tried to pose such dilemas to the
Haelynites in the group. Talinie as I have it is divided by various
interpretations of Haelyn, some of which hinge on questions of law and good.
The NIT is a NG temple, AFAIC compared to the more southern temples, which
are LG or LN.

> In Monte Cook`s Book of Hallowed Might he has a brief section about

assigning a numerical value to the alignments of characters. […]
As an interesting extension on such a system, one could make those numbers
a “point value” rather than a simple assessment and dole them out as a
reward during play.

I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system. When
characters meet strangers, I roll to see if they are recognized, and then at
the very least they are known by their leading trait, and possibly by
several traits. Character who are, say, lawful good are almost never both
in sufficient qualities so as to be recognized for both their lawfulness and
their goodness. The lawful qualities, honesty, faith, and duty generally
shine, or the good ones do, compassion, humility, and grace. The only
exception is a priest of Haelyn. The Anuirian knight IMC is LG, but hes a good 4, law 7 by Montes system.

If one is going to invest in a reputation system, Monte`s numbered alignment
is worth a read.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

36

All alingments except CG are extreme (perhaps sometimes NG isn’t extreme)
Odin([_]

37

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
> enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system.

Are you by any chance playing Pendragon? =)

(Wonderful game system for everyday life, especially for regents of small
domains, or in Anuirean and Rjurik lands, but probably not a very good fit
for BR magic.)

Ryan Caveney

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

38

----- Original Message -----
From: “Ryan B. Caveney” <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:16 AM

> > I keep track of these along with the seven chivalrous traits and two
> > enviromental traits I track as part of my overall reputation system.
>
> Are you by any chance playing Pendragon? =)

Nope. Never really looked at it. Star Trek had a reputation system based
on getting points for archetypal actions. Rokugan did that for d20. Then
the Dragon offered such a system for playing chivalrous characters. So, I
added a system like that which included a rating for stewardship of the land
and protection of the land. Stewardship means you use the land according to
Eriks teachings, Protection means you protect the land from those who would abuse the land. A close match between the reputation of the PC and the NPCs values can improve NPC attitude. Considerable distance is a penalty
to attitude.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

39

Well, I honestly disagree with the idea of placing alignment points. I f you do, then place them in a 1 to 9 scale of:

1 to 3 are Chaotic
4 to 6 are Neutral
7 to 9 are Lawful

and:

1 to 3 are Evil
4 to 6 are Neutral
7 to 9 are Good

or something like that. Alignments represent tendencies, not tennets! If you have paladin or other tennet bound characters (ie, samurai) in your campaign, make them follow them, or let them taste the consequences! Role-playing and its rewards cannot be ruled by mechanics. A Lawful Good character can allow a foe a fair fight, or bind and teleport the same foe to justice before being slain by the character’s comrades!

Anyway, the whole alignment discussion has been introduced by my mistake, and I suggest we leave it and talk more about the original subject of the thread.

If anyone agrees, well… he/she knows what to do.

40

Change “tennet” to “tenet”… Sorry!