New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 28 of 28
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Was 3rd edition the first edition that allowed for non-good rangers, and non-True Neutral Druids? Or was it also an option in 2nd edition DnD?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    From what I recall, yes. Rangers were limited to Good alignments, while Druids had to be Neutral, in 2nd edition. There is a pretty good compilation of the 2nd edition rules at this link
    Last edited by Eldonauran; 2018-07-09 at 06:40 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Thumbs up Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    In 2E, alignment restrictions were as follows:

    Ranger: Any good.
    Druid: True neutral only.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Like the paladin, the ranger has a code of behavior.
    A ranger must always retain his good alignment.
    Given this view of things, the druid must be neutral in alignment.

    So yes, looks like 3E was the first edition to break the mould.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Wasn't there a ranger kit that actually required evil? Something like those radical druids who want to burn civilisation?
    Chaos is I.
    Evil is Me.
    Good is Us.
    Law is We.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Got my hands on a 2nd edition complete druid handbook, and reading through the Shadow Druid Section my impression was: "these guys constantly do evil and stuff to destroy civilization, but through game mechanic fiat they stay neutral aligned" book even comes out and says many of their actions result in evil and chaos, and they like to use things like evil lycanthropes, but somehow they stay neutral.....
    Last edited by Yogibear41; 2018-07-09 at 07:04 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Feantar View Post
    Wasn't there a ranger kit that actually required evil? Something like those radical druids who want to burn civilisation?
    That's a good point: there may have been exceptions to the core restrictions on alignment in some of the splat books.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    There were race restrictions in 2e also, right? I remember Pikel being a Dwarf Druid being a big deal for some reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    There were race restrictions in 2e also, right? I remember Pikel being a Dwarf Druid being a big deal for some reason.
    As well as level caps

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lans View Post
    As well as level caps

    Unless you were a human if I recall, supposedly the lesser stats of humans compared to the bonus' the other races got were suppose to be countered by the fact that humans could progress to higher levels in the long run, or something like that is what I heard.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    There were race restrictions in 2e also, right? I remember Pikel being a Dwarf Druid being a big deal for some reason.
    Yes. They switched around a bit between 1e and 2e AD&D, 2e was more permissive than 1e was. I think 2e allowed gnomes to be druids as well as humans and half-elves. Elves were permitted to be rangers as well as humans and half-elves.

    Also, multi-classing was only allowed for demi-humans (though only in certain combinations).
    Last edited by Thrudd; 2018-07-10 at 12:16 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    If I remember right, it was because humans could multi-class. Other races could dual-class, having two classes at a time, but humans could play as one class, go for a while, then say "Nah, done with this one" and start leveling in the second class. This was only applicable if you had pretty good attributes - like a 14 minimum for primary attributes for your new class.

    When they did this, they lost all benefits from the first class except HP (which was a big thing because you only gained hit dice up to level 10 and then only gained one hp per level if I remember right). They only regained their original class abilities when you exceeded your previous class's highest level. Then you regain everything, but still have limits because certain class features are locked when you're wearing the wrong armor types. Oh, and you could never go back - once you multi-classed, you were done with the previous one.

    You can see this being made into pure cheese in some of the Forgotten Realms books. Elminster in particular was a fighter first (for the health and attack bonuses), then a thief, then a cleric, and only then a wizard.
    You may think of me as:
    Struggling amateur author #3284728

    Book one is on the Kindle now. It's a mix of hard science fiction and fantasy. How's that work? Surprisingly well.

    I share the ebook version of it freely. Link to download it is at the top of that page.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talanic View Post
    If I remember right, it was because humans could multi-class. Other races could dual-class, having two classes at a time, but humans could play as one class, go for a while, then say "Nah, done with this one" and start leveling in the second class. This was only applicable if you had pretty good attributes - like a 14 minimum for primary attributes for your new class.

    When they did this, they lost all benefits from the first class except HP (which was a big thing because you only gained hit dice up to level 10 and then only gained one hp per level if I remember right). They only regained their original class abilities when you exceeded your previous class's highest level. Then you regain everything, but still have limits because certain class features are locked when you're wearing the wrong armor types. Oh, and you could never go back - once you multi-classed, you were done with the previous one.

    You can see this being made into pure cheese in some of the Forgotten Realms books. Elminster in particular was a fighter first (for the health and attack bonuses), then a thief, then a cleric, and only then a wizard.
    you're right, except you've got the terms reversed. Multi-class means having two or three classes at the same time, only demi-humans could do that. Dual class meant permanently changing to a new class via the process you mentioned, only humans were allowed with exceptional stats. And you actually needed a 17 in the prime requisites of the class you wanted to change to, and 15s in the requisites of your original class.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Yay memory, only failing me a couple of times!
    You may think of me as:
    Struggling amateur author #3284728

    Book one is on the Kindle now. It's a mix of hard science fiction and fantasy. How's that work? Surprisingly well.

    I share the ebook version of it freely. Link to download it is at the top of that page.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurbane View Post
    So yes, looks like 3E was the first edition to break the mould.
    And it introduced a new restriction "May not choose your own creature type as a Favoured Enemy unless you are Evil" - which 3.5e did away with.

    3e druids still had some neutrality, with the "alignment must have at least one Neutral component" rule. 4e was the first edition in which you could have druid PCs or NPCs of any of the listed alignments - even LG or CE.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    3e druids still had some neutrality, with the "alignment must have at least one Neutral component" rule. 4e was the first edition in which you could have druid PCs or NPCs of any of the listed alignments - even LG or CE.
    If memory serves, you could find a way to be CE Druid in 3.5, but you needed to worship the FR deity Talos, or something.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Lightbulb Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    3e druids still had some neutrality, with the "alignment must have at least one Neutral component" rule.
    Interestingly, this was the alignment requirement for Bards in 2E.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ponyville
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrudd View Post
    Yes. They switched around a bit between 1e and 2e AD&D, 2e was more permissive than 1e was. I think 2e allowed gnomes to be druids as well as humans and half-elves. Elves were permitted to be rangers as well as humans and half-elves.
    And it went so far as Wizard spell school specializations were hardcore as well.

    Human wizard? Pick whatever school you like.
    Gnome wizard? Hope you like Illusions.
    [retired]

    Horribly out of date guide goes here:
    Oradin Guide

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tula, Russia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    From the officially published NPCs:

    Forgotten Realms
    Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves (March 1998)
    Ajaar Aunglor XII - Ranger 11, Neutral Evil
    Laosx Durothil - Ranger 7, True Neutral
    Raerauntha Fynnasla - Ranger 12, Neutral Evil
    Tehlmar Audark - Ranger 19, True Neutral

    The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier (April 1996)
    Maerovyna - Druid 9, Lawful Good

    Planescape
    Factol's Manifesto
    Factol Pentar - Ranger 20, Chaotic Neutral
    Jadex - Ranger 10, Chaotic Neutral

    On Hallowed Ground
    Beltain Firebrow - Druid 12, Neutral Good
    Essylt y'Marc'h - Ranger 9, True Neutral
    Proteus - Ranger 10, Chaotic Neutral

    Planes of Chaos
    Arnora the Fosterer - Ranger 14, Chaotic Neutral
    Galen - Druid 14, Chaotic Good

    Planes of Conflict
    Brother Berrypaw the Black - Druid 7, Chaotic Good
    Feleena the Clawed - Ranger 9, True Neutral
    The Warden - Ranger 12, True Neutral

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurbane View Post
    Interestingly, this was the alignment requirement for Bards in 2E.
    In 1e, Bard was a PrC which cast spells from the Druid list.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Thumbs up Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    In 1e, Bard was a PrC which cast spells from the Druid list.
    Yep, the 1E Bard was the prototype for PrCs in D&D; Fochlucan Lyricist is an attempt to re-create the 1E bard in 3.5.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by grarrrg View Post
    And it went so far as Wizard spell school specializations were hardcore as well.

    Human wizard? Pick whatever school you like.
    Gnome wizard? Hope you like Illusions.
    Well, that was the only example of magic school race restrictions - because they turned the 1e illusionist class, which was open to gnomes, into one of the schools of magic for mages. So now gnomes could be mages, with a caveat. But it only went one way - elven mages were not restricted from being illusion specialists (when elves could not be illusionists in 1e).

    When 2e first started, is was pretty close to 1e in terms of player options and restrictions.
    later in 2e's time, restrictions were gradually lifted or given exceptions with the many race and class guides that came out as well as the different settings.
    By the end of 2e's time, things were getting quite close to what 3e turned into, if you were using the Skills & Options book, the Combat & Tactics book, and the class kits from all the "complete X" books.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Greymane View Post
    If memory serves, you could find a way to be CE Druid in 3.5, but you needed to worship the FR deity Talos, or something.
    Talos, having no Druid Levels, couldn't grant Druid spells in the first place. He had druid followers, but it would appear that he wasn't the direct source of their power.

    He's still listed as a "Nature Deity" in the "playing Druids" section of FRCS - so I would guess that their power comes from Nature, and he is only a conduit rather than a source.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurbane View Post
    Yep, the 1E Bard was the prototype for PrCs in D&D; Fochlucan Lyricist is an attempt to re-create the 1E bard in 3.5.
    There's been a lot of odd intertwining betwixt Bard and Druid over the years.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Most bards I've played with tend to intertwine with lots of things, or at least try.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Efrate View Post
    Most bards I've played with tend to intertwine with lots of things, or at least try.
    Indeed. Whenever I play for a bard, I tend to dabble in everything. I don't care where it came from or how unlikely it was that I would be able to utilize it for it to become effective. It was NEW and SHINY and I WANTED IT.

    Ehem... That tendency happens to bleed over into most characters that I create. I gravitate towards classes that can fill various different roles and try to have something to do in every possible ecounter.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Efrate View Post
    Most bards I've played with tend to intertwine with lots of things, or at least try.
    UMD is a hell of a drug.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yogibear41 View Post
    Was 3rd edition the first edition that allowed for non-good rangers, and non-True Neutral Druids? Or was it also an option in 2nd edition DnD?
    In the core, yes. However, there were some options that extended druids beyond TN in various campaign settings and, IIRC, also allowed for non-good rangers, in a similar way.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Thurbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ShurikVch View Post
    From the officially published NPCs:

    Forgotten Realms
    Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves (March 1998)
    Ajaar Aunglor XII - Ranger 11, Neutral Evil
    Laosx Durothil - Ranger 7, True Neutral
    Raerauntha Fynnasla - Ranger 12, Neutral Evil
    Tehlmar Audark - Ranger 19, True Neutral

    The North: Guide to the Savage Frontier (April 1996)
    Maerovyna - Druid 9, Lawful Good

    Planescape
    Factol's Manifesto
    Factol Pentar - Ranger 20, Chaotic Neutral
    Jadex - Ranger 10, Chaotic Neutral

    On Hallowed Ground
    Beltain Firebrow - Druid 12, Neutral Good
    Essylt y'Marc'h - Ranger 9, True Neutral
    Proteus - Ranger 10, Chaotic Neutral

    Planes of Chaos
    Arnora the Fosterer - Ranger 14, Chaotic Neutral
    Galen - Druid 14, Chaotic Good

    Planes of Conflict
    Brother Berrypaw the Black - Druid 7, Chaotic Good
    Feleena the Clawed - Ranger 9, True Neutral
    The Warden - Ranger 12, True Neutral


    To be honest, the first half of that list doesn't surprise me in the least.

    The FR writers have always treated their NPCs as "special snowflakes" who can ignore RAW if they feel like it.

Posting Permissions

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