View Full Version : Something that's been bugging me for quite a while...
CapedLuigiYoshi
2009-03-10, 05:56 PM
First off, this has nothing to do with Vaarsuvius, Belkar, or the Kobold Oracle.
What is with Nale, exactly? He says he has levels in rouge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html), which is supported by both story purposes (gives him some abilities similar to Elan's) and his usage of Sneak Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0360.html).
However, he also says he's Lawful Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0057.html), which is supported by story purposes (Elan's Chaotic Good, and Nale wants to be opposite...) The problem this causes is that rouges can't be lawful (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html). How does that work?
The problem this causes is that rouges can't be lawful (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/rogue.html). How does that work?
This works in that you should really read your links.
"Alignment: Any."
It means any. Nothing there says or implies that rogues are barred from the Lawful alignments, nor have they ever been, from Basic D&D-no-A to 4ed, though in 1ed and 2ed they were barred from the Lawful Good alignment (in 1ed, still more bizarrely, they also couldn't be Chaotic Good). But Lawful Evil was never barred, I'm pretty sure (I'm not positive about 1ed, the alignment requirements were profoundly weird there), and Nale is a 3.5ed character anyway.
Rouges, of course, are all Neutral Evil, which is probably why Nale is part rogue and not part rouge.
Kaytara
2009-03-10, 06:01 PM
Well, I suppose it's possible that he was Chaotic Evil earlier and took the rogue levels back then and multiclassed later. Since he's now Lawful, technically he couldn't take any more levels in rogue, but that doesn't invalidate the benefits he gets from the levels he already took.
That said, I could be completely wrong about this. XD
Mando Knight
2009-03-10, 06:29 PM
What is with Nale, exactly? He says he has levels in rouge (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)
How does one take levels in makeup? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouge_(cosmetics))
Also, except for 1st edition, Rogues have never been prohibited from Lawful alignments, and even then 1st edition Thieves were only prohibited from LG and CG alignments...
Lamorak
2009-03-10, 06:35 PM
I'm more interested to know how powerful Nale really is - is he simply a mastermind villain who schemes to get what he wants or is he actually a formidable opponent? He takes out npc's fast enough (like when he broke out of prison in Azure City) but is he pc worthy?
Are there already threads on this?
Cúchulainn
2009-03-10, 06:42 PM
How come Rogues can be lawful but Bards can't? Someone explain this to me.
Vaarsuvius4181
2009-03-10, 06:45 PM
sigh....D and D is confusing.
Think i might just start playing this week by getting 4th ed.
adam_antio
2009-03-10, 06:50 PM
only in earlier editions Rogues couldn't be Lawful. In D&D 3/3.5 rogues can be of any alignement.
Bards (in 3.x) can't be lawful because of the deep chaotic nature of music, arts and passions.
Trebuchet
2009-03-10, 06:51 PM
I'm more interested to know how powerful Nale really is - is he simply a mastermind villain who schemes to get what he wants or is he actually a formidable opponent? He takes out npc's fast enough (like when he broke out of prison in Azure City) but is he pc worthy?
I think he's a threat to the PCs. He took out Elan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0056.html). He kidnapped Julia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0337.html) and the PCs did what he wanted, coming to Cliffport, even though it was clearly a trap. He almost managed to seduce Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0384.html). Though I think if he spent less time monologuing, he'd be more of a threat.
Rouge is the preferred class for demonic roaches.
Bards (in 3.x) can't be lawful because of the deep chaotic nature of music, arts and passions.
This never made sense to me. Someone like J. S. Bach for instance: would have made a great bard, was very passionate about the relationship between music and belief, and would have been considered an extremely lawful person. And his music is truly spellbinding.
osyluth
2009-03-10, 07:05 PM
Nale is a rogue/fighter/sorcerer. None of these classes have any alignment restrictions.
CapedLuigiYoshi
2009-03-10, 07:07 PM
Huh. I was pretty sure it said "any nonlawful". Probably because it sounds so steaking obvious. How would rogues be lawful?
As for bards, I've attributed their unlawfulness to the fact that apparently, in earlier editions, bards had to first take levels in fighter, thief, and sorcerer (which is likely where the Giant got the idea for Nale's multiclassing). Since thieves would be nonlawful, so would bards. But I could be completely wrong, since I don't actually play the game...
adam_antio
2009-03-10, 07:09 PM
Nale is rogue/sorcerer/fighter because the bard class is a concentrate of the talents of those classes, then virtually his power is the same of elan's.
Bards can bring swords, but can't fight like fighters; they cast spells based on charisma, like sorcerers, but they are not so powerful as a pure spellcaster; and have a lot of sneaky and social skills, but rogues have much more skills than bards.
In a real D&D game, he can't be optimized or powerful; but as a villain, he can be very versatile and adeguate in the role of leader, with a team composed by characters with more focused classes.
@GSFB
I never said that I agreed to the alignement restrictions for bard in 3.5 :smallwink:
Huh. I was pretty sure it said "any nonlawful". Probably because it sounds so steaking obvious. How would rogues be lawful?
The "Lawful" alignment has nothing to do with the law. Even if it did, the rogue/thief class has always meant an adventurer specialized in certain areas, which could be used for theft, not literally "someone who steals." Some 2ed books made the point that the "thief" class was often the best fit for someone in law enforcement.
As for bards, I've attributed their unlawfulness to the fact that apparently, in earlier editions, bards had to first take levels in fighter, thief, and sorcerer (which is likely where the Giant got the idea for Nale's multiclassing). Since thieves would be nonlawful,
Ahem. As I said,
ROGUES/THIEVES HAVE NEVER BEEN BARRED FROM THE LAWFUL ALIGNMENT. Not in 2ed, not in 1ed, not in 0ed. You cannot theorize that an actual rule is based on a rule which doesn't exist and has never existed--well, manifestly you can, but it doesn't work. :smalltongue:
Also, sorcerers were introduced in 3.0ed.
adam_antio
2009-03-10, 08:11 PM
in OD&D, members of the Thief class could be either Neutral or Chaotic, but not Lawful (in OD&D were not exist the good/evil axis).
in OD&D, members of the Thief class could be either Neutral or Chaotic, but not Lawful (in OD&D were not exist the good/evil axis).
Thieves could certainly be Lawful (indeed, my first red Basic Player's Handbook discouraged players, including thief players, from being nonLawful).
adam_antio
2009-03-10, 08:18 PM
Are you sure? I remember that Thieves cannot be Lawful, but obviously I can be wrong. It was a long time ago...
Mr. Pin
2009-03-10, 08:20 PM
Waitaminnit... If Nale has levels in Rouge, then he must be
a) French
b) a Red Dragon Disciple of formidable power!
Is it possible that we've been underestimating him this whole time? When he unveils his helpful natural armor bonuses, powerful ability scores, and devastating breath weapon, he'll be unstoppable! The Order is SO screwed! Why hasn't Elan realized his draconic heritage in a similar way? If the two fight again then Nale will...
Oh. Right. Surrender. Never mind, false alarm.
Cúchulainn
2009-03-10, 08:20 PM
All those lawful Thieves following their codes of honour and such, they're basically the paladins of the slums.
Are you sure? I remember that Thieves cannot be Lawful, but obviously I can be wrong. It was a long time ago...
No class-based alignment restrictions in the Basic books, though it talked about Lawful (which meant "Good") being the alignment for heroes, and Chaotic (which meant "Evil") being the alignment for NPC villains with very little depth.
I think it was the Companion set that introduced paladins (as a choice for Lawful fighters), avengers (as a choice for Chaotic fighters), and druids (as a choice for Neutral clerics). But thieves? Still any alignment, no specializations.
Zelthax
2009-03-10, 08:27 PM
This never made sense to me. Someone like J. S. Bach for instance: would have made a great bard, was very passionate about the relationship between music and belief, and would have been considered an extremely lawful person. And his music is truly spellbinding.
AMEN. And plus, any classicist could be considered more lawful/practical/mathematical than any paladin. The "Classical" periods produced composers who believed that music existed for its own sake. Therefore, the music needed some unification device, since the text (in singing, of course) wasn't as important as the music. THUS the music developed into strictly governed works, and in the early 20th century, written literally by mathematical formulas. That hardly bars music from Lawful alignments. But, this is not real life, it's D&D. I suppose all music in our game setting is Romantic in nature.
evileeyore
2009-03-10, 09:22 PM
Huh. I was pretty sure it said "any nonlawful". Probably because it sounds so steaking obvious. How would rogues be lawful?
As for bards, I've attributed their unlawfulness to the fact that apparently, in earlier editions, bards had to first take levels in fighter, thief, and sorcerer (which is likely where the Giant got the idea for Nale's multiclassing). Since thieves would be nonlawful, so would bards. But I could be completely wrong, since I don't actually play the game...
Ahem; Druid.
Bards went Fighter, then dual-classed into Thief, then dual-classed into Druid, then they were allowed to take Bard levels.
The original Bard was based off of the Nordic Skald.
Thieves could certainly be Lawful (indeed, my first red Basic Player's Handbook discouraged players, including thief players, from being nonLawful).
Your Red Book was not OD&D. OD&D came first, then came the Red D&D book, then came your Red Basic Player's Book (part of Moldavy's BXCM series).
However, you are correct. The OD&D Greyhawk expansion (added Thieves and Paladins) did not exclude Thieves from being Lawful. Nor did the Red Book, nor the BXCM series.
1st ed AD&D excluded Thieves from being Lawful Good and Chaotic Good, for some bizzaro reason.
Silverraptor
2009-03-10, 09:36 PM
Rogues can be lawful because they follow their own type of code, or honor, as worded. Lawful doesn't mean always follow the laws, just your beliefs to the end.
Teron
2009-03-10, 10:10 PM
All those lawful Thieves following their codes of honour and such, they're basically the paladins of the slums.
Or just guild thieves who understand and appreciate the value of organisation and working within an ordered, reliable and moderately corrupt system. The common unspoken arrangement, whereby an organised crime group limits its activities to the less sensational kinds and crushes the competition in exchange for the authorities' tacit acceptance, is quite lawful. That's just one example, to say nothing of characters with the rogue class who aren't thieves at all -- loads of skill points and a "dirty" fighting style do not a criminal make.
Ladorak
2009-03-10, 10:27 PM
I must say this thread has amused me greatly
CapedLuigiYoshi
2009-03-10, 10:27 PM
Rogues can be lawful because they follow their own type of code, or honor, as worded. Lawful doesn't mean always follow the laws, just your beliefs to the end.
Following one's own beliefs does not make one Lawful. At all. In fact, "following your own beliefs over anyone else's" is completely Chaotic.
Green&Submarine
2009-03-10, 10:42 PM
Waitaminnit... If Nale has levels in Rouge, then he must be
a) French
b) a Red Dragon Disciple of formidable power!
Is it possible that we've been underestimating him this whole time? When he unveils his helpful natural armor bonuses, powerful ability scores, and devastating breath weapon, he'll be unstoppable! The Order is SO screwed! Why hasn't Elan realized his draconic heritage in a similar way? If the two fight again then Nale will...
Oh. Right. Surrender. Never mind, false alarm.
The French get natural armor and breath weapons? Sweet, I am gonna roll up a French Ranger and dual-wield some baguette!
...
Oh wait, you were talking about the Red Dragon Disciple, weren't you?
As for Bards being Chaotic, I quote Elan:
:elan: "Being a bard is pretty silly. You walk into dungeons and SING at people. Who could take that seriously?"
I'm gonna guess that Bach was an Expert with many ranks in the Perform skill.
Silverraptor
2009-03-10, 10:53 PM
Following one's own beliefs does not make one Lawful. At all. In fact, "following your own beliefs over anyone else's" is completely Chaotic.
No. Chaotic means you do whatever and don't follow anything, even your own beliefs or goals. If you set a goal but fail to do anything about it or you have nothing to look forward to, then your chaotic. Like Belkar and his moving anywhere and killing anyone just for fun.
According to the 3.5 rules, being a "Lawful" character implies that you tend to tell the truth, keep your word, obey authority and honor tradition.
Certainly, a lawful character is unlikely to be a random burglar. But a rogue has a pretty wide range of activities. A Lawful rogue could be a member of the Thieves' Guild, following the rules that the Guild has devised, not killing needlessly when you rob, honoring extortion by not hurting people who pay you, that sort of thing. Or they could be an army assassin, killing enemies of the state in the dark for their king, avoiding traps and sentries to make surgical strikes against the enemy. Or they could be, oh I don't know, some kind of adventurer, who goes into ancient ruins, takes apart the deadly devices present, finds the treasures hidden there before a civilization fell into ruins, and then brings it back to civilization. Indiana Jones would be a rogue.
olthar
2009-03-10, 10:57 PM
How come Rogues can be lawful but Bards can't? Someone explain this to me.
The 2nd edition book gives the example of robin hood as a classic thief. He would be a good example of a lawful rogue because he was fighting against an unjust and unworthy ruler etc...
The Neoclassic
2009-03-10, 11:03 PM
Following one's own beliefs does not make one Lawful. At all. In fact, "following your own beliefs over anyone else's" is completely Chaotic.
Actually, no. Everyone "follows their own beliefs;" even if you follow a set moral code you are choosing to make it your own belief.
Chaotic means you do whatever and don't follow anything, even your own beliefs or goals.
Actually, no. That's chaotic stupid. Chaos would be entirely self-defeating if it regularly went against its own beliefs and goals.
According to the 3.5 rules, being a "Lawful" character implies that you tend to tell the truth, keep your word, obey authority and honor tradition.
Precisely.
Certainly, a lawful character is unlikely to be a random burglar. But a rogue has a pretty wide range of activities. A Lawful rogue could be a member of the Thieves' Guild, following the rules that the Guild has devised, not killing needlessly when you rob, honoring extortion by not hurting people who pay you, that sort of thing. Or they could be an army assassin, killing enemies of the state in the dark for their king, avoiding traps and sentries to make surgical strikes against the enemy.
Excellent examples. :smallbiggrin:
Also, I thought that Nale outlined in one of the comics his three or so different classes (which essentially amounted to a more complicated version of bard).
V'icternus
2009-03-19, 06:45 AM
All those lawful Thieves following their codes of honour and such, they're basically the paladins of the slums.
Paladin's of the slums? I've got to write that down somewhere...
"Make... lawful... rogue... paladin... of... slums..."
Of course, I'll be sure to overdo it for the histarical benefit of my fellow party members.
MickJay
2009-03-19, 06:59 AM
The 2nd edition book gives the example of robin hood as a classic thief. He would be a good example of a lawful rogue because he was fighting against an unjust and unworthy ruler etc...
Wasn't Robin Hood usually listed as an example of Chaotic Good?
We're talking about the legendary figure, of course, not the RL person who might have existed and started the legend. I mean, if we ignore all the propaganda and popular stories, most sane people would probably prefer king John rather than "good" king Richard as their ruler...
Snake-Aes
2009-03-19, 07:04 AM
Wasn't Robin Hood usually listed as an example of Chaotic Good?
We're talking about the legendary figure, of course, not the RL person who might have existed and started the legend. I mean, if we ignore all the propaganda and popular stories, most sane people would probably prefer king John rather than "good" king Richard as their ruler...
Yup, that was an example of Chaotic Good. "Lawful" doesn't have any relation to good or bad, nor does chaos. It's simply like the previous post's said... Abiding to tradition, or honor, or authority... said Tradition, Honor and Authority can be the government just as much as it can be the teachings of a psycopath. Good-Evil is a good way of describing how you see the others, and Order-Chaos, how you react to the environment and live your life.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.