Druid paladins

[TheAlmightyOne]

I was creating a character and the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes, just prestige classes. So I was checking the internet and found that druids have to be true neutral, paladins have to be lawful good and assassins have to be any evil. If i create this character I can be the only person in the world who is chaotic good druid/paladin/assassin

[Skjaldbakka]

congratulations, you're a chaotic champion of law. You might look into UA paladin of freedom, just so you can make some sense. I thinks its in the srd. www.d20srd.com.

And here it is: paladin of freedom
Also, assassin is a prestige class, not a base class.

[jamroar]

I was creating a character and the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes, just prestige classes. So I was checking the internet and found that druids have to be true neutral, paladins have to be lawful good and assassins have to be any evil. If i create this character I can be the only person in the world who is chaotic good druid/paladin/assassin

Druidic 'paladins' are bards.

[Renegade Paladin]

...

This post doesn't even make any sense. There's too much information missing. You'd better start over.

1.) When you say "the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes," what on Earth are you talking about?

2.) Druids do not, in fact, have to be true neutral. They have to be neutral, neutral good, neutral evil, lawful neutral, or chaotic neutral. None of those, however, are lawful good. Paladins, meanwhile, have to be lawful good. If a druid switches to LG he loses all class abilities, and if a paladin shifts away from LG he loses all class abilities, so multiclassing paladin and druid isn't feasible.

3.) "Paladin" of freedom sucks, but it has to be CG, which is also not N, NG, NE, LN, or CN. See above reasoning for why you can't multiclass that with druid either.

4.) Multiclassing paladin with assassin? Can I get a hell no, people? "Must be lawful good." "Must be any evil." Can anyone tell me why this wouldn't work? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

So I still don't know quite what you were rambling about, but that's what I say to everything I can pick out of the jumble that is the OP.

[Rumda]

the standard paladins abilities are too focused on its alignment for it to make sense if you allow it to be chaotic or evil, maybe if you want a more relaxed alignment restriction let the paladin be either lawful good, lawful neutral or neutral good, or look in to variants like the unearthed arcana paladin variants and if I'm not mistaken Fax Celestis made a paladin class that allowed you to be any of the extreme alignments as well

EDIT:

1.) When you say "the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes," what on Earth are you talking about?

he meant that the DM had removed all alignment restrictions on the base classes so you could have a CE paladin monk druid


EDIT:
fax's paladin

[Fascisticide]

It's funny how many people answer posts like this with something like "You can't do it unless some book published somewhere allows it"

[SpiderBrigade]

It's funny how many people answer posts like this with something like "You can't do it unless some book published somewhere allows it"

I think that's a pretty good MO when playing a rules-y game like D&D. Otherwise you get people doing all kinds of crazy things. Which can still be fun, but it's a whole different kind of game.

On the actual question, I think stretching the alignment rules to allow Druid/Paladin is not really that farfetched. Paladins have lots of "defending good" abilities, not a lot of really ultra-lawful ones. A crusading druid could be a really cool character concept.

On the other hand, Paladin/Druid/Assassin? No way. Unless you're rewriting the Assassin rules in some kind of way that makes him not evil anymore. Seriously, "defender of virtue" and "I kill people if you pay me" do not go together!

[MeklorIlavator]

On the other hand, Paladin/Druid/Assassin? No way. Unless you're rewriting the Assassin rules in some kind of way that makes him not evil anymore. Seriously, "defender of virtue" and "I kill people if you pay me" do not go together!

He could always do Blackgaurd Assasin. Or, for a full switch, Paladin/Druid/Blackgaurd/Blighter/Assasin.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I get the joke, but doing something impossible by removing all the requirements sort of kills the irony of it.

[Jayabalard]

Druidic 'paladins' are bards.

they'd more closely parallel rangers, though that may less true in current editions of D&D than the ones I grew up playing.

[Tobrian]

Druidic 'paladins' are bards.

Huh?

Since when do bards have nature magic? Or animal companions? Druids already are champions of nature.

It's funny how many people answer posts like this with something like "You can't do it unless some book published somewhere allows it"

Um, perhaps there a good reasons why certain rules are in place? Usually to prevent power abuse.

I think that's a pretty good MO when playing a rules-y game like D&D. Otherwise you get people doing all kinds of crazy things. Which can still be fun, but it's a whole different kind of game.

On the actual question, I think stretching the alignment rules to allow Druid/Paladin is not really that farfetched. Paladins have lots of "defending good" abilities, not a lot of really ultra-lawful ones. A crusading druid could be a really cool character concept.

On the other hand, Paladin/Druid/Assassin? No way. Unless you're rewriting the Assassin rules in some kind of way that makes him not evil anymore. Seriously, "defender of virtue" and "I kill people if you pay me" do not go together!

I agree. If you want to combine a smitey class and an assassin, there's already the blackguard, or the Champion/Paladin of Tyranny.

As for multiclassing paladin with other lawful and restricted classes like monk without losing access to either, there's already a feat to allow that (it's in Complete Warrior I think), and another feat allows you to multiclass paladin/bard. But again this does not mean that the paladin suddenly can do whatever the hell he wants, it just means the character a sort of herald-knight, or a warrior-bard, or a paladin-diplomat... he's still lawful though, the feat merely allows you to stay a bard while being lawful. Actually a pretty cool concept, I used it for an NPC, a bard who multiclassed into knight prestige class to win the hand of a noblewoman.

A LN druid/monk is possible even if I wonder what's the point, but a druid/paladin? A druid is already insanely powerful, and has a holy cause (nature), that just doesn't fit with the codex of a paladin no matter how many times you turn it around. The druid IS a paladin of nature... no need to add levels in a knightly paladin, defender of the realm. Paladins defend civilization... druids abhor it. Unless you want to do a city druid, but again, the concepts just don't mix, rules aside...

I could see mixing paladin and ranger, but you could arrive at the same character concept by simply swapping a few skills and feats between paladin and ranger (see Variant Classes from Unearthed Arcana, or online) and making a paladin who is more at home tracking criminals in the wilderness and fighting abominations. But there's already PRCs like the Justiciar and Bloodhound who serve similar story needs.

All said, I can accept bending the rules if someone started out with a cool concept (and by cool I don't mean ridiculously superpowered) and then tries to fit that concept and character background story into D&D classes. But if I get the impression that someone takes advantage of his GM throwing all rules out the window and just wants to go nuts to make the ultra-powerful cheesy character, my reaction is

[Fascisticide]

Um, perhaps there a good reasons why certain rules are in place?

I'm not against using the rules, but I dont like having to buy a book to be allowed to use something in it, it has a powergamer mentality, "I can do it because it's in the book I purchased".
You don't need a book to be alowed to take classes in Paladin and Druid, the DM just has to say Yes, it's simple and doesnt break the balance of the game.
But too often what I see is "go buy this book and you can do it". Spending money just to have a more powerful d&d character is not what I consider a good investment

[Tobrian]

I'm not against using the rules, but I dont like having to buy a book to be allowed to use something in it, it has a powergamer mentality, "I can do it because it's in the book I purchased".
You don't need a book to be alowed to take classes in Paladin and Druid, the DM just has to say Yes, it's simple and doesnt break the balance of the game.
But too often what I see is "go buy this book and you can do it". Spending money just to have a more powerful d&d character is not what I consider a good investment

No-one ever said that. Please read more carefully next time.

Now I have to wonder about the kind of groups you play in. I've come across people who think if someone is published somewhere it must be allowed no matter what the gamemaster or common sense says. But these people are not what I consider roleplayers.

And in closing, the original poster never said anything about ownership of a book allowing him to play that weird combo either; he claimed their DM had just thrown out all the playtested rules. Your remark doesn't even make sense in this topic.

[Wolf_Shade]

I was creating a character and the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes, just prestige classes. So I was checking the internet and found that druids have to be true neutral, paladins have to be lawful good and assassins have to be any evil. If i create this character I can be the only person in the world who is chaotic good druid/paladin/assassin

If you are a new player I think you might have misunderstood your DM's statement. He probably meant there's no ability point or feat prereqs for a base class. IE: You don't have to have a Charisma above 12 to play a Bard, and you could play a Fighter with a strength of 8. It's not advisable, but it's doable.

Now, if you're not a new player, and your DM did mean what you said he meant, then go for the chaotic good druid/paladin/assassin. If a DM wants to wipe all alignment requirements, that's his perogative.

[MandibleBones]

"I can do it because it's in the book I purchased".

Seconded. I had a group like that once, and it got so annoying that I had to throw it back in thier faces.

...

Of course, you haven't truly lived until you've seen the look on a munchkin's face when they realize that the "alien creature" their level 17 Jedi Guardian is attacking is a Wyrm Red Dragon.

[DoomsdayBadger]

I think that would be totally unfluffy and it would be hard to roleplay as.

I should cut down this tree to sell lumber to make money which I could give to the poor. But I also love this tree.

Why not do Ranger///Paladin? You'd get a smattering of druidic like qualities and all the paladin goodness you can handle.

Also, is he removing the paladin multiclass restrictions? Because if the campaign goes on for a long time you could face some severe XP drain.

[Counterspin]

Don't let any of these folks discourage you. Figure out how that class combo works for your character and run as far and hard as you can with it. The alignment restrictions are the lamest portion of the base classes, and you're better off without them. They do nothing but limit options. Ignore such poorly thought out silliness and have fun.

[de-trick]

I'm not sure but in 3.0 they had in the quintessential they had all the classes multi-class and had spiffy names i think druid/paladin is totem champion not sure if right or not name though

[ArmorArmadillo]

Don't let any of these folks discourage you. Figure out how that class combo works for your character and run as far and hard as you can with it. The alignment restrictions are the lamest portion of the base classes, and you're better off without them. They do nothing but limit options. Ignore such poorly thought out silliness and have fun.

They're only silly if they don't make sense.
Druids having to have one neutral component is one of the more sensible restrictions that exists; to gain power from nature you must respect the balance and conflict that drives nature;
A good person and an evil person can both eat the same berries from the same bush; nature can't work for a single alignment.

[MeklorIlavator]

Don't let any of these folks discourage you. Figure out how that class combo works for your character and run as far and hard as you can with it. The alignment restrictions are the lamest portion of the base classes, and you're better off without them. They do nothing but limit options. Ignore such poorly thought out silliness and have fun.

Only those restrictions that seems arbitrary have as strong case against being followed. For instance, there is nothing inherently Chaotic about the Barbarian or Bard class, and both could be refitted to fit in a Lawful alignment.
On the other hand, Both Paladins and druids have compelling reasons for their restrictions. As ArmorArmadillo has already stated, the Neutral component of the Druid class makes sense because it represents balance, and if you belong to 2 of the extreme alignments you are, by definition, a force of imbalance. Also, a Paladin is an upholder of an ideal philosophy, zealously eradicating their opposites, and are therefore another force of imbalance. The Imbalance is represented in class by the requirement that they be of an extreme alignment. The classes are at conflict at their roots, and ignoring the alignment restrictions would not be a reasonable tactic, as it invalidates the entire reason for the class.

[TheOOB]

Alignment restrictions are tricky, especially for base classes. I suscribe the the idea that since WotC can't come up with a good definition of law and chaos, their law and chaos prereqs should be taken with a grain of salt. I personally don't use law and chaos prereqs in my game as the definition I use would have nothing to do with how your learn your abilities (and what is a class but an ability set).

[Roderick_BR]

In the Paladin/Druid defens, I pledge the 2nd edition Druid/Ranger case.
Rangers need to be any good.
Druids need to be full neutral.
Half-elves could multiclass as Ranger/Druid.
Multiclass requires you to still respect alignment restrictions.
An errata, with a bit of houserulling, allowed Neutral Good Druid/Rangers.

A DM can houserule this kind of change, if it fits his campaign. A paladin/druid would be a champion of good, using the power of nature, instead of a knightly code.

[arnoldrew]

Only those restrictions that seems arbitrary have as strong case against being followed. For instance, there is nothing inherently Chaotic about the Barbarian or Bard class, and both could be refitted to fit in a Lawful alignment.

Actually, to give a literary example, I always thought Wulfgar was Lawful, at least pre-Errtu

[Leon]

I was creating a character and the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes, just prestige classes. So I was checking the internet and found that druids have to be true neutral, paladins have to be lawful good and assassins have to be any evil. If i create this character I can be the only person in the world who is chaotic good druid/paladin/assassin

If your DM is happy with it, then by all means go for it

the Assassin can be easily modified to not require "evil", break down some of the confining walls of the Paladin class and roam the woods with the rest of natures defenders

[Leon]

Also, is he removing the paladin multiclass restrictions? Because if the campaign goes on for a long time you could face some severe XP drain.

Again depends on what the DM is allowing and at any rate should he chose a race with Any class as a Favoured he'll be fine - 2 base and 1 PrC

[TheOOB]

The paladin class really isn't powerful enough to warrent the alignment and code of conduct prereqs, nor the multiclass penalty. Heck you could make smite evil work agienst any alignment and that class would still be inferior to a well built fighter.

So no, I don't see anything wrong or overpowered about removing the requirements of the paladin, a class should represent an ability set rather then a roleplay shell anyways.

As for the druid alignment prerequisites, they are purely for flavor, they don't really weaken the druid in any real way (except for the armor thing, but wild shape more or less nullifies that restriction).

[Counterspin]

Alignment restrictions are trash. They have no significant impact on balance, and they limit a player's options. This makes them the very definition of a bad rule, in my opinion.

[TheOOB]

Alignment restrictions are trash. They have no significant impact on balance, and they limit a player's options. This makes them the very definition of a bad rule, in my opinion.

Well the idea is that it creates roleplay situations, which is fine for PrCs, but I personally think base classes should have as little roleplay built in as possible, letting the player flavor them as they like.

[Tor the Fallen]

...

This post doesn't even make any sense. There's too much information missing. You'd better start over.

1.) When you say "the DM said that there were no requirements for taking levels in base classes," what on Earth are you talking about?

2.) Druids do not, in fact, have to be true neutral. They have to be neutral, neutral good, neutral evil, lawful neutral, or chaotic neutral. None of those, however, are lawful good. Paladins, meanwhile, have to be lawful good. If a druid switches to LG he loses all class abilities, and if a paladin shifts away from LG he loses all class abilities, so multiclassing paladin and druid isn't feasible.

Why do you explain exactly what the OP means in his OP, yet post so snarkily:

So I still don't know quite what you were rambling about, but that's what I say to everything I can pick out of the jumble that is the OP.

Do you really not get it, or are you being passive aggressive??

A paladin (base class) requires that you be lawful good. By waiving the requirements for base classes, the paladin must no longer be lawful good. Surely you aren't just missing that on purpose to make an argument!