Non-Good Rangers, Non-True Neutral Druids?

[Yogibear41]

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?

[Eldonauran]

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 (http://www.purpleworm.org/rules/)

[Thurbane]

In 2E, alignment restrictions were as follows:

Ranger: Any good.
Druid: True neutral only.


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.

[Feantar]

Wasn't there a ranger kit that actually required evil? Something like those radical druids who want to burn civilisation?

[Yogibear41]

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.....

[Thurbane]

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.

[Psyren]

There were race restrictions in 2e also, right? I remember Pikel being a Dwarf Druid being a big deal for some reason.

[Lans]

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

[Yogibear41]

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.

[Thrudd]

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).

[Talanic]

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.

[Thrudd]

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.

[Talanic]

Yay memory, only failing me a couple of times!

[hamishspence]

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.

[Greymane]

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.

[Thurbane]

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.

[grarrrg]

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.

[ShurikVch]

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

[Nifft]

Interestingly, this was the alignment requirement for Bards in 2E.

In 1e, Bard was a PrC which cast spells from the Druid list.

[Thurbane]

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.

[Thrudd]

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.

[hamishspence]

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.

[Nifft]

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.

[Efrate]

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

[Eldonauran]

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.

[Nifft]

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

UMD is a hell of a drug.

[LibraryOgre]

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.

[Thurbane]

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.