belkar

[xelliea]

how come belkar is a ranger and they have to be good ?????:belkar:

[Spiryt]

So you were serious.

In short, in 3.0 and 3.5 editions, rangers can have any alignment.

[blackspeeker]

how come belkar is a ranger and they have to be good ?????:belkar:

where did you get that idea from?

[Draz74]

where did you get that idea from?

The 1e and 2e rules.

[Spiryt]

where did you get that idea from?

To be more specific:

In 2nd edition, (dunno about 1rst, probably too), rangers archetype was different, less general "wanderer" or "forester" and more like Ranger. Yes, from Lord of the Rings.

Thus they had to be good, just like Paladins.

EDIT: Of course ninjed, but my post is longer :smallwink:

[xelliea]

sorry i play AD&D

[Estovus]

sorry i play AD&D

{Scrubbed}

[Spiryt]

{Scrubbed}.

From your post I can assume that you take pleasure in playing sheriff, and insulting people. That's not very nice.

Also, game isn't taking place in any hybrid. The only 4.0 stuff till now was joke with Kubota reading books.

But generally, I must agree with Estovus. You could think a bit more about what you want to post, xelliea (Welcome on the boards anyway)

[The Extinguisher]

{Scrubbed}

You mispelled "addressing" there.

{Scrubbed}

[Estovus]

From your post I can assume that you take pleasure in playing sheriff, and insulting people. That's not very nice.

{Scrubbed}


You mispelled "addressing" there.

{Scrubbed}
Your point?

[mockingbyrd7]

{Scrubbed}

You do know what happens when you assume, right?

[Estovus]

You do know what happens when you assume, right?

You eat a Mars bar?

[blackspeeker]

To be more specific:

In 2nd edition, (dunno about 1rst, probably too), rangers archetype was different, less general "wanderer" or "forester" and more like Ranger. Yes, from Lord of the Rings.

Thus they had to be good, just like Paladins.

EDIT: Of course ninjed, but my post is longer :smallwink:

Well don't I feel foolish.

[Ironwolf172]

From your post I can assume that you take pleasure in playing sheriff, and insulting people. That's not very nice.

Also, game isn't taking place in any hybrid. The only 4.0 stuff till now was joke with Kubota reading books.

But generally, I must agree with Estovus. You could think a bit more about what you want to post, xelliea (Welcome on the boards anyway)

From your post I assume.... I'm just kidding.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't attack, insult, belittle, or abuse other posters. If you read a post that flames others in this way, please report it using the "Report Post" feature. Please do not respond by flaming the flamer. That only amps up the conflict and gets you into trouble.

[Mortith]

Belkar also multiclassed to Barbarian so he might be allowed to have a class that require a certain alignment with his multi-class to Barbarian. Regardless of his Alignment.

I'm sorry Roy. I don't trust you enough to believe you lied to me. :belkar:
But I just explained that- AAAARGH :roy:
Give in to your anger. Strike him down young greenhilt, and take your place by
my side. :vaarsuvius:

[Kish]

The only alignment requirement for barbarian is "Not Lawful." Belkar was extremely Chaotic for a long time before that.

There is no alignment requirement for ranger (in 3.0ed, or 3.5ed, or in 4ed for that matter.)

[Mortith]

oh, ok.
I guess that makes more sense though.
ty.