Elven alignment restriction

[gazza666]

The restriction on elven alignments in the new rules seems to be a serious case of "versionitis".

In previous versions of D&D, there were moderately harsh penalties for changing alignment, up to and including losing a level of experience. Under such conditions alignment changes were rare. But this is not the case with the current rules; there are now no penalties at all for changing alignment; rather than alignment meaning "This is how I WILL act" it now means "This is how I HAVE acted".

OK, that's not strictly true. If you change alignment and you're a member of a strongly aligned class, you suffer penalties. The D&D rules spell out what happens in such cases (eg barbarians lose their ability to rage, paladins lose most of their granted powers, and so forth).

What exactly is supposed to happen to an elf who becomes lawful? Do they begin to age? Do they lose their immunity to sleep spells? Do their senses dim so that they no longer get the bonus on Search, Spot, and Listen checks?

In the current edition of the rules a DM cannot say, "Your character wouldn't do that; that's a lawful act, and elves can't be lawful." Instead he just tracks your alignment and if he feels you have drifted into a lawful alignment, he informs you accordingly (probably he warns you first; that's immaterial for this point). If elves have an alignment restriction, then there needs to be an "ex-elves" addendum to the description of the race, spelling out what happens to a lawful elf.

But I suggest that the whole idea of this alignment restriction is foolish anyway. There are no humanoids in the core rules that have "Always" as part of their alignment; "Always" is limited usually to outsiders. And if elves are only "Usually" non-lawful, then there should not be a restriction on PCs (who are typically not "usual" anyway).

[RaspK_FOG]

The fact that elves cannot be lawful is a thing about thematics; in fact, there's no elf that ever followed what the rules portray as lawful activity.

You see, to be lawful, you must create or subject yourself to a more or less defined ethical system or number of axioms; in fact, being lawful is all about abiding to a code of conduct even when it would be inconvenient to do just that. For example, a lawful guardsman may as well tell his superior how a good friend and comrade has committed a crime; however, depending on how he acts in accordance to the world (moral alignment [good-versus-evil] in combination with his code of conduct) affects what and how he is going to do. For example, a lawful good guardsman would probably try to talk his friend over if it is a redeemable act, or do something similar; on the other hand, it is possible that a lawful neutral guardsman will suggest that he surrenders himself, then turn him over to the authorities if he does not comply.

Sidhelien do not act that way; sure, they do have laws and traditions, but anyone can do that. The difference from a creature with a lawful alignment and a sociologically speaking lawful person is that the lawful alignment signifies a lawful philosophy; in other words, a person with a lawful alignment is a sociologically speaking lawful person, yet not every sociologically speaking lawful person has a lawful alignment.

How is that so? Well, when one does obey to rules and regulations not because he wants and feels its right to do so (he object to the outcome of using the rules, but this is a question on the nature of the rules, not on the very existence of the rules themselves) but because he has to, then he is either neutral (if he generally does no feel confined as much as defined) or chaotic (if he feels as if his freedom has been cut down considerably).

An elf on Aebrynis does not ever, but one's very nature, dedicate oneself to such sets of ideals or axioms; one may follow custom and tradition due to good reason, but one won't even think before lying if telling the truth would be disastrous (well, in most cases).

Another thing: an act alone rarily if ever in any campaign changes one's alignment instantaneously; it should really be a very serious transgression of one's erstwhile alignment to guarantee such a heavy-handed reversal...

In the end, to put it simply, a sidhelien can simply NOT become lawful; if a player portrays his character lawfully, inform him of the fact so that he stops.

[celtibear]

I seem to have missed this in the rules, which I also seem unable to procure a copy of at the moment (I tried to download a copy to find the citation for this, but it's in an unknown file format, ".rar"?).

How is it that elves cannot be lawful? This seems odd to me, as elves are usually considered staid and steady, cultured and civilized, creatures of habit, etc. These are all traits of lawful creatures, I would think.

This is mainly moot in my game, as I've pretty much ruled that elf characters are off-limits as PC's. Even so, what's the basis for the restriction?

[Fizz]

Nope, cerilian elves cannot be lawful at all. It is against their very nature. It's described in the core rules.

"The elven heart is unfathomable to mortals; they're moved to wild delight, dark melancholy, or burning rage with the only the slightest of causes. More than anything else, elves are unpredictable, doing what pleases them from one moment to the next."

They can still be cultured and civilized certainly, and can still have laws and rulers. Those things don't describe lawful behavior.


-Fizz

[celtibear]

Ah, so they're unseelie, which is passionate and chaotic, but not necessarily (or even more than occasionally) evil.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

[Fizz]

Ah, so they're unseelie, which is passionate and chaotic, but not necessarily (or even more than occasionally) evil.

Gotcha.

Thanks.

Um... well... er...

Kinda sorta not really.

Passionate and chaotic, definitely. But the term `unseelie' actually has a connection to something else, which i won't mention for fear of spoilers.

Best to refer to them as sidhelien, and leave it at that. Heh.


-Fizz

[gazza666]

The fact that elves cannot be lawful is a thing about thematics; in fact, there's no elf that ever followed what the rules portray as lawful activity.

So you're saying that no elf, anywhere, ever engaged in a lawful act?

If you really mean to say that, then you're suggesting that elves are more strongly aligned than any other being in the multiverse. Even outsiders can engage in cross-alignment acts or even change alignment - it's very rare, but it can happen.

On the other hand, if you simply mean that it is rare for an elf to ever engage in a lawful activity, then there should be no PC restriction.



You see, to be lawful, you must create or subject yourself to a more or less defined ethical system or number of axioms; in fact, being lawful is all about abiding to a code of conduct even when it would be inconvenient to do just that.

There are two problems with this.

Firstly, your definition of lawful is not accurate. All alignments follow a number of axioms; they are, however, different axioms, which is how one tells alignments apart. For example, lawful good characters believe in the greatest good for the greatest number, and might be inclined to sacrifice a little freedom for the greater good; chaotic good characters would consider a sacrifice of freedom to be too high a price to pay, since freedom is one of the things that are important to their notion of what is "good". Both are following axioms, they're just different axioms.

But let us suppose for the moment that your definition of lawful is accurate. In 3rd edition, being lawful simply means that on the whole you follow a defined ethical system or number of axioms. It doesn't mean that you always do so, and it certainly (crucially!) doesn't mean that you must do so. If you consistently fail to do so, you will drift into a neutral or even chaotic alignment, but there are no penalties for this in 3rd edition; alignment is no longer a straitjacket.

(guardsman example snipped)



Sidhelien do not act that way; sure, they do have laws and traditions, but anyone can do that. The difference from a creature with a lawful alignment and a sociologically speaking lawful person is that the lawful alignment signifies a lawful philosophy; in other words, a person with a lawful alignment is a sociologically speaking lawful person, yet not every sociologically speaking lawful person has a lawful alignment.

Actually I disagree with that as well. A lawful creature is not necessarily a sociologically lawful person. Lawful Evil crime lords are an obvious counter example.

But in any case, saying that "Sidhelien do not act that way" is a very strong statement. Saying "very few Sidhelien act that way" or even "Sidhelien very rarely act that way" are fine; that is the equivalent of a "Usually non-lawful" alignment, which is the strongest any non-outsider race has.



An elf on Aebrynis does not ever, but one's very nature, dedicate oneself to such sets of ideals or axioms; one may follow custom and tradition due to good reason, but one won't even think before lying if telling the truth would be disastrous (well, in most cases).

Lawful characters are not necessarily truthful. Lawful evil, again, is an obvious counter example, but frankly even a lawful good character is not required to be honest all the time. Paladins, maybe, might have restrictions that are that harsh - some DMs would suggest that a paladin is morally obligated to tell the truth even to a demon prince - but then again, paladins have strict rules for what happens if they engage in chaotic or evil activities. Note that they are not by any means restricted from performing such activities - they can do whatever they wish, but they suffer a penalty if they do.

That's the 3rd edition way.



Another thing: an act alone rarily if ever in any campaign changes one's alignment instantaneously; it should really be a very serious transgression of one's erstwhile alignment to guarantee such a heavy-handed reversal...

Or a series of minor acts, yes?



In the end, to put it simply, a sidhelien can simply NOT become lawful; if a player portrays his character lawfully, inform him of the fact so that he stops.
And if he doesn't?

You should not be telling your players how to act. In 3rd edition, the accepted means of enforcing alignment is to impose penalties for infractions (c.f. paladins, barbarians, et al). So if elves really are as strongly aligned as you suggest - and I reiterate that this is absolutely unprecedented for any non-outsider in 3rd edition - then the rules need to be a lot more explicit, ideally spelling out what happens to an elf who becomes lawful.

Because with all the best intentions it can happen. What if a chaotic good elf puts on a cursed helm of opposite alignment? Are they simply immune to the effects of such items?

Either:

PC elves should not be restricted to non-lawful alignments; no other humanoid is, and it has no effect on Sidhelien culture as a whole to allow that a rare number of them are lawful (any more than the occasional good goblin or orog affects their culture), or
The penalties for becoming lawful need to be spelled out, or
It needs to be made explicit that Sidhelien are completely incapable of lawful acts, and immune to any sort of magical compulsion that would force them to engage in them.

The first of these three options makes the most sense, but at the very least one of them needs to be adopted; the current rules are inconsistent with the 3rd edition definition of the way alignment works.

[epicsoul]

You should not be telling your players how to act. In 3rd edition, the accepted means of enforcing alignment is to impose penalties for infractions (c.f. paladins, barbarians, et al). So if elves really are as strongly aligned as you suggest - and I reiterate that this is absolutely unprecedented for any non-outsider in 3rd edition - then the rules need to be a lot more explicit, ideally spelling out what happens to an elf who becomes lawful.

Because with all the best intentions it can happen. What if a chaotic good elf puts on a cursed helm of opposite alignment? Are they simply immune to the effects of such items?

Either:

PC elves should not be restricted to non-lawful alignments; no other humanoid is, and it has no effect on Sidhelien culture as a whole to allow that a rare number of them are lawful (any more than the occasional good goblin or orog affects their culture), or
The penalties for becoming lawful need to be spelled out, or
It needs to be made explicit that Sidhelien are completely incapable of lawful acts, and immune to any sort of magical compulsion that would force them to engage in them.

The first of these three options makes the most sense, but at the very least one of them needs to be adopted; the current rules are inconsistent with the 3rd edition definition of the way alignment works.

Okay, first of all, players playing in BR should maybe buy in to the theme of the campaign... which includes no lawful elves. Period. So, the DM shouldn't have to force them to do anything... they should want to do it. Otherwise, they don't get to play an elf in your campaign. A lawful elf could just become an NPC.

Alternatively, you could say that BR elves are very different - in fact, in some ways, they ARE Outsiders... consider their relationship with the shadow world, and with the Sie - the Seelie faeries. Thus, they DO classify as an Outsider for the purpose of enforced alignment.

Lastly, if you need penalties instead, here y'are:
-Any non-blooded Sidhe that becomes lawful loses the ability to use arcane magic until they return to a non-lawful alignment - any blooded Sidhe that becomes lawful has 2 negative levels towards their arcane spell-casting class until such time as they return to a non-lawful alignment.
-A lawful Sidhe loses the ability of Nature Stride, as they have lost touch with the chaotic power of nature, as found in Cerilia.
-Any elf that becomes lawful has the Infamous Reputation affect their dealings with other elves as well. That is, a -4 to diplomacy, and gather information... and a +4 to intimidation, as there is just something utterly wrong with the elf in question.
-Sidhe with lawful alignment can not achieve balance with their Timeless nature. They begin to grow ill, and are no longer immune to disease. Further, they begin to require more rest than an ordinary elf - meditating, perhaps even sleeping, for the same amount a human requires (8 hours a day)
-Elves that are lawful lose their racial bonus for Listen, Search and Spot, as they are no longer as in tune with their environment and nature.
-Elves that are lawful lose their +2 bonus vs. enchantment spells, as their spirit no longer has the quicksilver-like quality of a creature of chaos. They retain their immunity to sleep spells.

-Furthermore, any item that would switch a Sidhe's alignment to lawful, they would make a Fort Save, DC 18, or die. However, successfully making this save, the alignment switch would not occur. (it should be noted that items, other than perhaps intelligent weapons, that switch alignment should be relatively rare in Cerilia, as the elves would have been highly unlikely to have created any, leaving what few to be created by humans)

I think the best option, personally, is just to say that Sidhe can't be lawful.

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, so my examples have not been that accurate; I don't always have the time to phrase everything the best way possible.

As for your question, gazza666, let me put it simply: a sidhelien won't ever commit enough minor or any major alignment infractions to see himself becoming lawful; he simply will not act in such a manner. In other words, and before this turns into a joke, the sidhelien are made to resemble the sidhe of Ireland in some extent; and, true, while they really are bound by any geas they take, that doesn't mean they are lawful, much like how a lawful person who lies once in a while does not become chaotic. See how your argument falls short?

The problem, in my humble opinion, is that you feel that the alignment restriction is supposed to impose a sort of penalty; it doesn't: it's a role-playing thematic, much like how Cerilian dragons don't have an "Always" tag on their alignment. You might also be interested in noting how mythology was much stricter or looser in its outlook of mythical beings in regard to alignment: duergar were evil Scottish dwarves, the same for drow being the equivalent for elves, while Tuatha de Daanan, nymphs and dryads were more fleating and aloof. Likewise, there is a tale written by Marie de France (is that how it is written?) that speaks of a good werewolf, for example, wronged by his wife.

Blood Spawn holds the answers to most of your questions. It may spoil your view of Birthright, Cerilia, and the Shadow World, however...

[Thorogood Roele]

I would have to definately agree with gazza666 on this whole argument. Any good DM that allows PC elves just cannot simply tell the player you must absolutely remain non-lawful. What are you going to do if the player decides that his character is going to start acting lawful??????????? Decide simply beyond any doubt that his character dies? or that he simply dissappears from the world? or make the player leave your house and quit playing? That goes against every core reason for playing. What if the player refuses to listen to nudges that elves "CANT ACT THAT WAY". Obviously there should be penalties as mentioned, loosing the qualities that are inherent to an elf, perhaps. It would be like telling a paladin he couldnt turn to the dark side so you're not going to allow him to slay that innocent.

All of the arguments that support elves maintaining the strict non-lawful alignment seem to forget that elves, by every single official writing dealing with elves, are in fact very lawful in reguards to following the unwritten rules of their cultures. Until you read Greatheart, you can't really refute what I am saying. In that book and in Tuarhievel realm setting, the official writers give us a very clear look at the heart of elves when it comes to their own custom's and believes dealing with their own countries and lands. Anyone that understands how an elves believe about their own cultures couldnt possibly state that it's impossbile for individual elves not to decide to apply that same mentallity to the rest of their lives.

Another example of lawful behavior in elves is their extreme dedication to one way of life (taken from the book "war"). In that book, it states that at birth elves are determined to have a "nature" for one particular "class" either artists, warriors or mages. And that is the way that they "must" follow. The culture requires it. Everyone in their culture simply accepts it and no-one would even think of defying that custom. That is very lawful, in fact almost Communist.

Finally in their personal lives yet another example of lawful behavior is their entirely obsessive devotion to the things that they are studying. Elf mages, devote a very psychologically defined obsession to studying all things magic. Warriors devotes their entire lives to learning the arts of bows and swords, etc. These are not just passing things they learn, they devote their very lives to them, and only in passing devote time to studies outside their "walk" in life. (of course except their families and communities)

So I would say that all of these extreme contradicitions would indeed produce a few souls so take Lawful to heart in all aspects of their lives.

[gazza666]

OK, a few points here.

The "my way or the highway" attitude expressed (ie "If you want to be lawful, you can't be an elf") is just silly. PCs are often exceptions to the normal rules; most half orcs are evil, for example, but there are no restrictions against playing a lawful good one if you want to. There's nothing stopping you playing a paladin in a chaotic evil fashion if you like - you'll suffer for it, but it's not banned.

The list of "what happens to an elf who becomes lawful" is quite harsh, and I would argue was also quite silly - but I have no problem with it. If you really, really, really, must have all elves non-lawful, and you feel that their nature is so tied into this that they would lose all those abilities, then fine. But it needs to be in the rules! There's no way you can simply assume people know this (especially the proposed way of resolving what happens if they are magically forced to change alignment).

Of course, I think the tying of arcane magic abilities to a non-lawful nature is ridiculous, because it immediately begs the question of why lawful human wizards don't suffer a similar penalty. But no doubt arguments could be made for or against.

In the interests of full disclosure: none of my group use alignments at all; my interest in this is purely academic. The whole idea of a racial alignment restriction for a standard PC race is so anti-3rd edition that it strikes me (as I pointed out in my opening post) as "versionitis" - a thoughtless translation of what was the case in 2nd edition without considering the ramifications of what it means in 3rd edition. (Although arguably even in 2nd edition the consequences of donning a helm of opposite alignment weren't clear; however, 2nd edition tended to be much looser on such things than 3rd edition is).

From my perspective, the existence of a couple of PC elves with lawful alignments isn't going to crack the entire foundation of Cerelia. But YMMV.

[Fizz]

What are you going to do if the player decides that his character is going to start acting lawful??????????? Decide simply beyond any doubt that his character dies? or that he simply dissappears from the world? or make the player leave your house and quit playing?

Well, what would you do if a player decided that his elf had darkvision like a dwarf? Or the ability to shadow walk like a gnome? Both these and the alignment restriction are a part of the defined rules for the race. Alignment may be more difficult to adjudicate, because it's a roleplaying tool, but it's still a rule.


Until you read Greatheart, you can't really refute what I am saying.

So, if we read Greatheart, we CAN refute what you're saying?

Are the novels considered official material? I believe that in the official rulebooks, there is more to support the chaotic nature of elves than there is to support lawful.

For example, from the Book of Regency:
While a human peasant might fantasize about someday becoming a knight or even a lord, and a knight or lord might aspire to regency, elves generally long for more freedom and time to enjoy the wonders of the world. The rulers of the elves have less freedom than their subjects and must live with responsibility. The chaotic nature of most elves must be suppressed in a would-be king, or he will run his domain into ruin.

So, this says that elves are so chaotic, it can actually be a problem for rulers. They have to suppress their own wild nature to rule effectively. Every elf domain in any of the regional expansions is either neutral or chaotic. I don't know of a lawful one.

Upholding tradition or following a life `path' is not necessarily lawful. Likewise, a person who changes his major 10 times in university is not necessarily chaotic.

I personally think the desire to be free and wild is the most predominant factor for the elves. Traditions can be honored, some rules obeyed, but they don't supercede the race's inherent wild nature.

But we must be careful in how we compare alignments. Alignments in 2nd Ed (when Birthright was written) were somewhat different than how they are in 3E. In 2nd Ed, alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket. But in 3E alignments are considered fundamental forces of the universe.

The wild unpredicable nature of the elves is, imo, an important feature of the setting, making elves here different than your standard elves.

If your version of the sidhelien is different and it works, then by all means use it.


-Fizz

[Fizz]

half orcs are evil, for example, but there are no restrictions against playing a lawful good one if you want to.

True, but what i think started this thread in the first place is that it is stated that elves CAN'T be lawful. Nothing in the 3E or 1st Ed AD&D rules said that half-orcs MUST be evil. But in Birthright, it is specifically stated that it is physically against an elf's nature to be lawful.

And that's where the debate began... :)


To clarify, the original Birthright rulebook states:

"Cerilian elves follow any nonlawful alignment; it's not in their natures to place the values of society above the freedom of the individual."




-Fizz

[gazza666]

Well, what would you do if a player decided that his elf had darkvision like a dwarf? Or the ability to shadow walk like a gnome? Both these and the alignment restriction are a part of the defined rules for the race. Alignment may be more difficult to adjudicate, because it's a roleplaying tool, but it's still a rule.

That's a straw elf. ;)

Alignment does not impose restrictions on behaviour in 3rd edition; it merely reflects behaviour. It is mutable in exactly the way that the non-presense of darkvision is not. ;)

To answer your question - if the player decided his elf had darkvision like a dwarf, all well and good for the player; since it is the DM that decides what the character can see, though, he won't actually have darkvision. But the DM does not decide how the character will act - that's basically what the player is there for.



For example, from the Book of Regency:
While a human peasant might fantasize about someday becoming a knight or even a lord, and a knight or lord might aspire to regency, elves generally long for more freedom and time to enjoy the wonders of the world. The rulers of the elves have less freedom than their subjects and must live with responsibility. The chaotic nature of most elves must be suppressed in a would-be king, or he will run his domain into ruin.

So, this says that elves are so chaotic, it can actually be a problem for rulers. They have to suppress their own wild nature to rule effectively.

I'm surprised you quoted that. From my perspective, this says, "A ruler can suppress his chaotic nature".



Every elf domain in any of the regional expansions is either neutral or chaotic. I don't know of a lawful one.

But they're all NPCs. I don't care about NPCs - NPC goblins will typically be evil; NPC paladins will typically never act in a non-lawful good manner. If the elven alignment is "Usually non-lawful" or even "Usually chaotic", then that deals with NPCs just fine while at the same time imposing no restrictions on PCs.



Upholding tradition or following a life `path' is not necessarily lawful. Likewise, a person who changes his major 10 times in university is not necessarily chaotic.

"Likewise, a Sidhelein who does not desire to be tied down by rules is not necessarily non-lawful".

In what way is that statement different to yours?



I personally think the desire to be free and wild is the most predominant factor for the elves. Traditions can be honored, some rules obeyed, but they don't supercede the race's inherent wild nature.

And I personally think that this idea of elves makes them, to some degree, psychologically 2 dimensional. I think elves should be capable of the same breadth of desires, hopes, and dreams as any of the other sentient humanoid races.

Let's use an analogy here. It could be quite reasonable argued that the desire to fit into his clan and honour traditions was the most predominant factor for the dwarves - and yet they do not have a requirement that they are lawful.

Most elves hate or at least strongly dislike humans. PC elves are not required to do so. There isn't even a restriction against elven clerics, and to my mind that is a far bigger break with tradition than being lawful.



But we must be careful in how we compare alignments. Alignments in 2nd Ed (when Birthright was written) were somewhat different than how they are in 3E. In 2nd Ed, alignment is a tool, not a straightjacket. But in 3E alignments are considered fundamental forces of the universe.

That's completely backwards. 2nd edition imposed (harsh) penalties for changing alignment; you immediately require double XP to get to your next level, and if you do it twice within a level you lose all accumulated XP for your current level as well. 3rd edition imposes no restrictions at all, in the general case.

Yes, Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic are forces in the universe, but 3rd edition simply made that explicit; the spells that prove the case (Protection from Evil, Dispel Good, Holy Word, and so forth) are not, in the main, inventions of the current edition. And the various strongly aligned outsiders have been around since at least 1st edition (granted the term "outsider" is new).



The wild unpredicable nature of the elves is, imo, an important feature of the setting, making elves here different than your standard elves.

Not trying to make them standard elves. Just arguing that they're still basically humanoid, and ought to be capable of the same range of philosophies that unsophisticated orcs are capable of. They've had thousands of years to explore different philosophies, and so quite possibly they consider that non-lawful alignments are "objectively" best. But that doesn't mean that nobody ever rocks the status quo and gives lawful good a shot for a while - surely to restrict them from following a lawful alignment is making them more predictable, and less free?

[Fizz]

That's a straw elf. ;)

Alignment does not impose restrictions on behaviour in 3rd edition; it merely reflects behaviour. It is mutable in exactly the way that the non-presense of darkvision is not. ;)

Heh. Yes, i know it's not perfect. But the way it's written in the original rules- as though it were an ability. Dwarves are magic-resistant, elves are non-lawful. Just the nature of the beast. That's how it's written, is what i'm saying.


I'm surprised you quoted that. From my perspective, this says, "A ruler can suppress his chaotic nature".

But the point being it's a conscious effort to do so. A struggle for the regent. And suppressing one's chaotic nature does not turn him into a lawful alignment. His chaotic nature will still have influence, but he can't be solely chaotic and expect his domain to run like clockwork.


But they're all NPCs. I don't care about NPCs - NPC goblins will typically be evil; NPC paladins will typically never act in a non-lawful good manner.

Typically, yes. But that's the key word- `typically'. In Birthright, NO elves are lawful. It doesn't say a `typical' elf is non-lawful. It says ALL elves are non-lawful.


"Likewise, a Sidhelein who does not desire to be tied down by rules is not necessarily non-lawful".

In what way is that statement different to yours?

I was replying to the other person who said that based on the novels, he felt the elves could be described as lawful because they had a life-class, or somesuch.

My statement is different than yours because i don't think following a tradition or life-path is a lawful trait. Following tradition is not a law, it's a choice. And the inability to decide on a major is not a chaotic act. Those are acts that i don't think are defined by the ethical axis.

But specifically disregarding rules, that i think is a non-lawful trait.


And I personally think that this idea of elves makes them, to some degree, psychologically 2 dimensional. I think elves should be capable of the same breadth of desires, hopes, and dreams as any of the other sentient humanoid races.

Well, that's where we differ i guess. I think you can cover all ranges or desires and hopes and dreams outside of alignment restrictions. Alignment will in part determine how you react to stimuli but that's independent on the character's hopes and drems. Both lawful and chaotic, good and evil, characters might want to rule a nation- they'd just rule in different ways.


Let's use an analogy here. It could be quite reasonable argued that the desire to fit into his clan and honour traditions was the most predominant factor for the dwarves - and yet they do not have a requirement that they are lawful.

But the rules don't say that honoring their clan is something inherent to their nature. Conversely it does say that wildness and freedom are inherent traits of the elves.


Most elves hate or at least strongly dislike humans. PC elves are not required to do so. There isn't even a restriction against elven clerics, and to my mind that is a far bigger break with tradition than being lawful.

Hatred of humans is neither a lawful nor chaotic act- it doesn't sit on that axis. Officially elves can't be priests because they have no gods (though that's not a rule i necessarily agree with).


That's completely backwards. 2nd edition imposed (harsh) penalties for changing alignment; you immediately require double XP to get to your next level, and if you do it twice within a level you lose all accumulated XP for your current level as well. 3rd edition imposes no restrictions at all, in the general case.

It's not backwards- I made no mention of the penalties between 2nd Ed and 3E at all. All i meant was that 2nd Ed and 3E treat alignment differently. 2nd Ed does say (i have the book right here) that it is a tool for roleplaying, not a straightjacket. Whereas 3E they are considered real forces in the universe.

So, when we debate the elf, we have to take that into account. The cerilian elf was written with the 2nd Ed version in mind, not 3E.


But that doesn't mean that nobody ever rocks the status quo and gives lawful good a shot for a while - surely to restrict them from following a lawful alignment is making them more predictable, and less free?

I agree to that to an extent. It's why i think, though it should be rare, an elf should be able to aquire a deity if he chooses.

I think the cerilian elf was designed with non-lawfulness as an inherent trait of the race- it is not a choice for elves like it is for humans and dwarves, etc. It's what they are, like a psychological block built into their DNA.

I think our debate really comes down to nature vs nurture. I'm siding with nature, and you're siding on nurture. Certainly, both can work provided the players know what's coming.

I do like the fact that elves are seemingly so crazy to humans. It makes them something more than skinny humans with pointed ears and an affinity for nature. The entirely different mindset is what makes them unique and fun to deal with.


-Fizz

[gazza666]

Well, fair enough; it looks like we'll have to agree to differ here. Thanks for being a good sport about it.

In all honesty, if the consensus is as you suggest - that elves are (basically) as strongly aligned as something like an Aasimar - I'm OK with that; I do feel, though, that the BRCS 3rd edition rules should state explicitly what happens to an elf who does become lawful (eg through magical compulsion) or that they cannot be so compelled (which would manifest as either an immunity, of sorts, or else a Save or Die type effect). Those of us that disagree would obviously be welcome to house rule it otherwise in our own games; in order to fit the example shown by such things as paladins, bards, and so forth, though, the penalties for lawful behaviour ought to be defined.

A query, though: is it assumed that anyone who picks up the 3rd edition Birthright rules is familiar with/owns the 2nd edition rules? (I do - it's useful for the map and the war cards, even if you disregard everything else). I had thought that the 3rd edition pdf was intended to be complete - if not necessarily right now, then at some point in the future.

The reason I ask is that you're referring to things like, "... officially elves cannot be priests ..." which doesn't appear in the 3rd edition pdf. Effectively, I guess I'm asking: is the 2nd edition still considered canonical, such that the pdf is intended merely as a conversion guide? Or is the 3rd edition intended to be definitive?

[graham anderson]

You could be sane and do what a lot of people I know do and scrap everything to do with alignment. I know I do it and it makes the games much better, no calls from the paladin or priest every five seconds saying detect evil for it will be answered by the DM's reply of you feel a strong evil force building in the DM.

No detect evil, no protection against alignments or any other rubbish. I still let some things in like detect the shadow worlds and its effects, or detect the hand of the evil gods but they have effects on people unlike alignments one persons hero is another villain.

I will finish again by beating this dead horse scrap all alignments.

[gazza666]

I concur wholeheartedly. That's how we play as well. Our reasoning is that (say) a paladin's abilities do not and cannot require the roleplaying restrictions to balance them. Either they are balanced with no alignment restrictions, or else they are unbalanced.

In my opinion none of the core classes (including the paladin) are unbalanced in this fashion. Thus the alignment restriction is not required for balance purposes.

Of course that doesn't mean that you can't still expect the paladin to follow a code, if you like - whatever floats your boat; my group basically treat classes as a purely mechanical construct, and roleplay however we so desire.

Admittedly this does introduce issues with the (large!) number of spells that seem to require an alignment - Detect Evil, et al. We basically just hand waved this as follows: anyone on your side is "good" and anyone not on your side is "evil" for the purposes of these types of spells (and you have "neutral" as well, if they are neither one nor the other). Surprisingly this very simple mechanic works out to have largely the same effect as normal D&D alignments have, and without all the tedious arguments about whether or not Mr Paladin just committed an evil act by killing the evil demon after he surrendered.

It has a great benefit, too: outsiders become fair game regardless of alignment. Ever want to go mano-a-mano with a Solar? Hey hey. :)

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, fair enough; it looks like we'll have to agree to differ here. Thanks for being a good sport about it.

In all honesty, if the consensus is as you suggest - that elves are (basically) as strongly aligned as something like an Aasimar - I'm OK with that; I do feel, though, that the BRCS 3rd edition rules should state explicitly what happens to an elf who does become lawful (eg through magical compulsion) or that they cannot be so compelled (which would manifest as either an immunity, of sorts, or else a Save or Die type effect). Those of us that disagree would obviously be welcome to house rule it otherwise in our own games; in order to fit the example shown by such things as paladins, bards, and so forth, though, the penalties for lawful behaviour ought to be defined.

A query, though: is it assumed that anyone who picks up the 3rd edition Birthright rules is familiar with/owns the 2nd edition rules? (I do - it's useful for the map and the war cards, even if you disregard everything else). I had thought that the 3rd edition pdf was intended to be complete - if not necessarily right now, then at some point in the future.

The reason I ask is that you're referring to things like, "... officially elves cannot be priests ..." which doesn't appear in the 3rd edition pdf. Effectively, I guess I'm asking: is the 2nd edition still considered canonical, such that the pdf is intended merely as a conversion guide? Or is the 3rd edition intended to be definitive?
There is no reason to impose a save or die mechanic; that really sounds strange, and the weirdest of all is to actually think that doing something as radical as changing the target's alignment (something few conditions can achieve, actually, like that blasted helm of opposite alignment or however it's called) should have anything to do with the death of the target! Immunity, or even erratic results, are fine, but death? How peculiar...

"Alignment Restriction: Unpredictable and fey, Cerilian elves must follow a non-lawful alignment." As far as I can tell, and considering the nature of such magic as the one you refer to, this rule becomes obsolete when such magic is involved; the individual loses or has part of his nature suppressed, since even templated creatures, like vampires, can have their alignment changed through such means.

In regard to your argument about ineffectuality, please read the following quote from the playtesting BRCS, in the Cleric section of character classes: "Only in elven realms are clerics a rarity. The elves have been adamant in their refusal to worship human gods and refuse to allow humans to proselytize their religious ideologies within elven lands." Note that this is a generic statement that allows SOME sidhelien to pay service to a deity.

Note that, if you dislike part of the way the game works, you can simply disregard it; I am against the whole idea of allowing lawful sidhelien, but I won't come over and demand from you that you stop doing so. In fact, the whole thing I want to make clear is that what is behind this theme is that no elf on Cerilia normally makes such choices as to become lawful; sure, he may act lawfully, none's against that argument. Still, he won't ever become truly lawful; my earlier statements were exactly trying to express that: a person that reluctantly follows a code of conduct or even a dogma but would be ready to abandon it at the drop of a hat is not lawful; he may be neutral, even chaotic, but certainly not lawful, otherwise he wouldn't feel he would abandon it if the time was right. That's why sidhelien rulers aren't lawful: they do all of this because they have to, not because they believe it to be ethically correct; if they felt it was correct, they wouldn't feel like struggling against it. If you want a different approach, he may accept that it is correct in terms of what must be done, but he is not content with the state of affairs. That's why any sidhelien lord would jump at the opportunity to loosen his lordly shackles if at all possible.

Note that there are only two lawful elfen creatures in all of Cerilia, but I'll leave this as a bit of a hook for those who are not aware of who they are. ;)

[gazza666]

So you're saying that there are two lawful elves already? I'm missing something, clearly, because the obvious conclusion from that is that (while rare) the idea of a lawful elf is in fact actually possible.

Fundamentally, I'm essentially suggesting the following:

Elven clerics ought to be virtually unknown. It is absolutely critical to the whole elven ethos that they have no truck with divine magic - the entire history of how elves came to be defeated by the humans, and their decision to betray Azrai, is testament to this. And yet elven clerics are not forbidden.
I would argue that the "no divine magic" feature is at least as strong as the "non-lawful alignment" feature.
Therefore I see no reason to disallow the one if the other is allowed.
However, if elves absolutely must not be lawful, then that's cool too. I'm simply arguing that an off-hand "Any non-lawful" entry doesn't go far enough; take a look at any of the classes that have a similar restriction, and you'll see that it spells out what happens if they break it. Perhaps an addition such as "No elf may willingly adopt a lawful alignment; however, if forced to do so through magical means, they do not lose any of their racial abilities and qualities".

That's really all I'm saying. Of course I know that nobody is going to bust into my game and force my buddies to start playing non-lawful elves (well, firstly they'd have to start by forcing us to use alignments, but I digress). But this is the "official" 3rd edition Birthright rules, right? As such, it ought to follow the established convention in 3rd edition of spelling out what happens in the case of a strongly aligned creature abandoning their alignment. (The case of not being able to do so voluntarily is relatively unprecedented, but as long as it's spelt out, that's fine).

[Fizz]

I had been writing from the premise that everyone knew the original 2nd Ed rules. Perhaps i should not do that. But yes, in 2nd Ed, elves could not be priests at all. That's been changed in the 3E conversion to be merely extremely rare.

Two lawful elves? Hmmm... either i knew that or forgot or never knew it. I wonder if an abnormal effect has imparted this (ie, they're now awnsheghlien). Either way, in what sources is this information? I now need to know. Heh.


-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

Note that Fizz (:o I almost used the 10th-letter of the alphabet there; does that make me vulgar, or does mentioning the very fact make me even more so? :D) is closer to what I mentioned; after all, I only said "elfen creatures," not elves. :p

To your credit, though, I was about one of the two I had in mind, so there is but one and only one elfish (I use the Middle English spelling to make a distinction from elves) creature with a lawful alignment on Cerilia. Those who have paid attention to things said a little while ago will know where to look for.

[Fizz]

To your credit, though, I was about one of the two I had in mind,

I'm not sure what you mean there. You were mistaken about one of them?


so there is but one and only one elfish (I use the Middle English spelling to make a distinction from elves) creature with a lawful alignment on Cerilia. Those who have paid attention to things said a little while ago will know where to look for.

Ah, wasn't sure if that was a spelling mistake on your part or not. With that in mind, i think i know to whom you refer.


-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

You probably do know, as you have shown thus far ;); sorry about my earlier error: I am dyslexic, and it is really annoying when you think you have written something and then you realise that you actually haven't because most people simply cannot make neither heads nor tails out of your gibberish. Yes, I was wrong about one of the two I had in mind, that's what I meant. :p

[RaspK_FOG]

Elven clerics ought to be virtually unknown. It is absolutely critical to the whole elven ethos that they have no truck with divine magic - the entire history of how elves came to be defeated by the humans, and their decision to betray Azrai, is testament to this. And yet elven clerics are not forbidden.


Actually, how come you say the betrayed Azrai? I overlooked this; you know, it was Azrai who betrayed the Sidhelien, not the other way around...

[gazza666]

Actually, how come you say the betrayed Azrai? I overlooked this; you know, it was Azrai who betrayed the Sidhelien, not the other way around...
Sidhelien propoganda.

They were part of Azrai's army, and then they joined the other guys to turn the tide of battle. As justifiable as it may have been, this was still a betrayal. I'm sure that the poor misunderstood Azrai felt absolutely devastated by this unexpected development. Then when all the other gods ganged up on him - well, that just really upset him.

I see that you may be one of those who has not considered that history is written by the winners. :)

[RaspK_FOG]

First of all, the "winners" were the humans in this conflict, so I don't see how the Sidhelien would do otherwise (not to mention how it's canon, but I digress); furthermore, the Sidhelien lacked any knowledge as to the true nature of the Face of Evil: to them, in their angered, savage fury, Azrai was the most clean way towards wiping humans out of their homelands. The reason they "betrayed" him was that he had betrayed their trust by using them against the rest of the gods and effectively having them as his servants in order to practically enslave all beings, not right-out destroy the humans as they thought he was helping them do. To that end, he had betrayed them, so they no longer were bound to follow him.

Oh, and I don't see how Azrai was or would ever be poor; canon material shows that he was quite the intelligent bastard, and that is something few can account for. I won't spoil your fun any but, please, check up more on the source material: he was and will always be the ultimate evil on Aebrynis, despite the very well played hands dealt to the Gorgon.

[gazza666]

Err... I was actually kidding there. I am aware that Azrai is the big bad (although "canon" is silly for roleplaying games).

For what it's worth - getting rid of alignments allows for the sort of moral ambiguity required to make Azrai merely misunderstood... if that sort of thing strikes you as fun.

In any case, the elves definitely did betray Azrai - regardless of whether they were betrayed first, no matter how good their reasons were, the fact that they did so is uncontrovertible. My point there was that I think personally it is far more "anti-canon" to have clerical elves than lawful elves. But YMMV, of course.

With regard to my knowledge of the source material: I have the 2nd edition boxed set and the new PDF; that is as far as my interest goes, as I'm interested in playing a game rather than joining a cult. :) The point of this thread is that the 3rd edition PDF should stand alone; as such, giving a core race an unprecedented alignment restriction either needs more information (following the 3rd edition trend of spelling out what happens if you break the restriction), explicit rules forbidding elves from ever breaking this restriction (as no other strongly aligned character has such a restriction, up to and including paladins), or else the restriction could be simply removed. If it stays, a "Behind the Curtain" section wouldn't hurt. It cannot be assumed that players will have any knowledge of Cerilia (indeed, it would be more likely that they would not), and even if they do there is no guarantee that they have any respect for the "canon" (I certainly don't); the assumption should be that the players who pick up the PDF have never played and possibly never heard of Birthright before. In this vein, if you're going to change the rules for alignment with regard to one of the races - and make no mistake, that's what's is being argued here; it is unprecedented for a PC to be forced to not follow an alignment barring magical compulsion - then such a rule change requires documentation. Not extensive documentation, but at least a couple of paragraphs.

Otherwise you run the risk of a DM seeing the one-liner "elves cannot be lawful", thinking to themselves, "Well, what happens if they become lawful? Do they become non-elves then? Maybe best to just ditch that." And then you'll have Birthright campaigns with lawful elves in them. ARGH! THE SKY IS FALLING! :)

[graham anderson]

Alignments have been broken from day one why cant people just take them out. WHY OH WHY?

Personaly I feal that if it is possible for an elf to be a cleric then it is possible for an elf to be lawful but it would be a rare elf who had lead a strange life.

[RaspK_FOG]

Check up on the Rulebook from the Boxed Set and read the last paragraph regarding elves on page no.6; I don't see how 3.5e changes that part... Note that even in 2e there were spells that were tied to alignment. Why don't we just wrap this up, then, with the following suggestion:

· Alignment: Sidhelien are of fey nature, unpredictable and not entirely unfathomable by most mortals, ever spontaneous; they may not have a lawful alignment, unless their alignment gets changed through the application of magic or a template.

[graham anderson]

I dont use any spells tied to alignment as I dont use alignments. To me honest this wont effect me as I still wont use alignment whatever other people dicide will be fine with me on this although I would like everything to do with alignments removed (Yes I know that wont happen but I can dream cant I).

[gazza666]

Check up on the Rulebook from the Boxed Set and read the last paragraph regarding elves on page no.6; I don't see how 3.5e changes that part...

Is the intention to create a 3rd edition Birthright game, or to just convert the 2nd edition game to 3rd edition? If it is the latter, then the restriction should obviously stay, but I question why similar restrictions were removed (elves couldn't be priests, to beat the dead horse again).



Note that even in 2e there were spells that were tied to alignment.

Yes, agreed. But in 2e the penalties for changing were harsh, such that you could pretty much assume nobody would do so. In 3rd edition, there aren't any penalties, so the question of what to do about a player who just has his elf continue to perform lawful acts does arise.



Why don't we just wrap this up, then, with the following suggestion:

· Alignment: Sidhelien are of fey nature, unpredictable and not entirely unfathomable by most mortals, ever spontaneous; they may not have a lawful alignment, unless their alignment gets changed through the application of magic or a template.
I could live with that. It's a little terse for my liking, but I'd be the first to concede that this is merely a personal preference.

I am now intellectually curious as to whether or not there are any lawful creatures of the Fey type in the core rules.

[gazza666]

I dont use any spells tied to alignment as I dont use alignments. To me honest this wont effect me as I still wont use alignment whatever other people dicide will be fine with me on this although I would like everything to do with alignments removed (Yes I know that wont happen but I can dream cant I).
Does this mean that spells such as Holy Word do not exist in your campaign? Or do you have an equivalent that strips out everything except the effect on extraplanar creatures?

[Danny_Cline]

There are no humanoids in the core rules that have "Always" as part of their alignment; "Always" is limited usually to outsiders.


As such, it ought to follow the established convention in 3rd edition of spelling out what happens in the case of a strongly aligned creature abandoning their alignment. (The case of not being able to do so voluntarily is relatively unprecedented, but as long as it's spelt out, that's fine).

I agree.

Actually, gazza, it's a little more than relatively unprecedented, it's completely unprecedented. You refer a couple of times to humanoids being at most "Usually Alignment X" and "Always Alignment Y" being reserved for outsiders and the like. However, even in the case of beings like the Azer "Always Lawful Neutral", the Copper Dragon "Always Chaotic Good" or the Vampire "Always Evil (Any)", we aren't quite in the "not-being-able-to-abandon-their-alignment-voluntarily-no-matter-how-excessively-hyphenated" boat yet.

As the Monster Manual states in the Glossary (p.305),
"Always: This creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible [emphasis mine] for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions."

Keep in mind that this is for NPCs, so even they are able to change alignment with some difficulty. On the other hand, as far as I know, even when Outsiders with alignment restrictions have been opened to player characters (I don't have my copy of Savage Species on me to check), there has never been a racial alignment restriction for a PC in 3rd Edition D&D. Of course, Cerilian Elves may well even be the only such case in 2nd edition AD&D, so they may be more strongly tied to their non-Lawful restriction than all the angels in the heavens are tied to good, or all the fiends of the pits are tied to evil. It is a little hard to buy, however.

One of the prime motivations behind the design of D&D 3rd Edition was to allow for more player choice in their characters. I'd say not placing unchangeable alignment restrictions on an aspect of a character that the player can't later abandon is in pretty direct opposition to this. As a couple of you have said before, in D&D 3.0, the DM and Alignment are not there to tell you how you can play your character. There can be penalties for various things during play, but usually, "you can't play this character anymore" isn't among them.

As far as a game-mechanic to promote non-lawfulness among elven characters, here's all I'd suggest: if you use an Elven Paragon class (as in Unearthed Arcana), add the following:

Alignment: Any nonlawful.

Ex-Elven Paragons
An elven paragon who becomes lawful loses all elven paragon spells and abilities, (including increased spellcasting levels gained from the class, but not weapon or armor proficiencies). He or she may not progress any further in levels as an elven paragon.

If you want it to be more of an incentive, make the class better (maybe with another increased caster level). Whether they can get back in or not afterward if they return to a nonlawful alignment could be argued either way, as a penalty to make the change hurt more (if they can't get back in) or an incentive to make them come back to a nonlawful alignment (if they can get back in).

If you absolutely have to go with a loss of racial abilities, a pretty strange idea in my opinion, make them lose their Timeless ability. It's the only one that I can even imagine could be tied to alignment, though even it's a stretch.

[graham anderson]

Does this mean that spells such as Holy Word do not exist in your campaign? Or do you have an equivalent that strips out everything except the effect on extraplanar creatures?

Most spells still exist after a fassion but loose alignment effects they may gain offer effects. For instance spells to detect azrai's bloodline , the influence of a specific god or gods or the shadow world.

I have never run a game where someone could cast a spell as big as holy word but if I did I would make changes to it removing the alignment effects and extraplaner isn't likely to come up so thats a moot point. I would probably make it effect shadow world creatures or the priests of certain gods but until it comes up I wont bother spending time changing it and If I am too lazy I would just say it doesn't exist.

[RaspK_FOG]

First of all, this might as well become a sidebar to the effect of how things play out in this discussion, but I believe a poll is closer to what you want us all to deal with; on the other hand, this community suffers from a serious problem: the BRCS cannot change all the time, even according to the desires of the community; otherwise, it's really quite possible that it will never get finished.

Two things I can't wrap my mind about is why should elves actually lose anything when they would become lawful: the whole idea is that they CANNOT become lawful; and the second part is, why do you attribute the severe penalties of a so-called role-playing guideline in 2e for being a good reason to have no such alignment: isn't it more natural, by all means, to think of the 3e alignment, which is both a role-playing guide and a representation of your ethical and moral nature as a person, as a better system to represent how your alignment is to be restricted?

If we would have to change things in any sort of way, I would think that they would have to have a tag which says that Sidhelien must begin with a non-lawful alignment during character creation, thus representing that your average elf, which has not been exposed to the world at large, does not put the people as a whole above the individual, for example. How does that sound?

[gazza666]

It sounds fine, but to the point of superfluity, I would argue. What's the net effect of the difference between "Elves may not start with a lawful alignment; however, should they become lawful during play they lose none of their abilities" and "The vast majority of elves follow non-lawful alignments; however, PCs may be of any alignment"?

The latter need not even appear in the mechanics section at all - it can just be mentioned in passing in the notes on how to roleplay elves appropriately.

The way I see it, if you're not actually going to stop someone from being a lawful elf, there isn't much point in merely hindering them. About the only effect is that you can't be a 1st level elven paladin (or monk, but I don't think there are monks in Cerilia). Since there are virtually no elven paladins anyway, this isn't really much of a restriction.

[Magnus Argent]

[quote=gazza666]Err... I was actually kidding there. I am aware that Azrai is the big bad (although "canon" is silly for roleplaying games).>>

Actually, I'm one of those who believes that part of what makes Birthright so brilliant isn't what is written in the books but, rather, what was left out of them. Its like the authors knew that players would be reading the material as well as the DMs so the didn't spell everything out. Rather, they made a bunch of dots without telling anyone and then left it up to smart DMs to connect those dots. Kind of like writing in code.

So, yes, I agree. Relying on canon can be silly.

<<In any case, the elves definitely did betray Azrai - regardless of whether they were betrayed first, no matter how good their reasons were, the fact that they did so is uncontrovertible. My point there was that I think personally it is far more "anti-canon" to have clerical elves than lawful elves. But YMMV, of course.>>

Incontrovertible? Just because its canon? :p

OK, some of those dots I mentioned. Dot 1 - According to Book of Priestcraft, at the battle of Deismaar, Ruornil was sent by Vorynn to convince the Vos armies to switch sides. Azrai prevented Ruornil from reaching the Vos by sending fiends after Ruornil & Co. Dot 2 - Ruornil is known for wearing silver-grey robes. Dot 3 - Ruornil is neutral. Dot 4 - The Vos didn't switch sides .. but the elves did. In the middle of battle, Tuar suddenly realized that Azrai is bad and humans are good.

Soo.. how do you connect the dots? What would you do if you were Ruornil and your mission was to subvert a segment of the enemy army? Would you simply give up if you were prevented from reaching your target? Or would you find a new target? How would you accomplish your goal? Perhaps by charming the leaders of the enemy army? But how do you charm an elf when they have 90% resistance to charm person spells (2nd edition)? What about Ruornil's robes? Anyone know of any magical grey robes that reduce magic resistance and enhance charm person spells (again, 2nd edition)? What's more believeable .. that Tuar had an epiphany on the battlefield or that she was charmed by a high level human magician wearing robes of the archmagi? You tell me ..

Oh, speaking of Tuar.. what ever happened to her? (dot) Is it possible that she survived Deismaar? (dot) If so, might she have been imbued with a bloodline.. maybe even became an awnsheighlien? (dot) What would she have been transformed into? (dot) Well, if you believe its possible that she was charmed by a human at Deismaar, how appropriate would it be for her to be transformed into one? (dot) Just who is the Black Princess, anyhow? Oh, yeah.. "Tara". (line)

Ok, I admit, my views are contrary to canon. Sort of. I also admit to being silly (sometimes). But I'm at least good for some food for thought. :o

<<Otherwise you run the risk of a DM seeing the one-liner "elves cannot be lawful", thinking to themselves, "Well, what happens if they become lawful? Do they become non-elves then? Maybe best to just ditch that." And then you'll have Birthright campaigns with lawful elves in them. ARGH! THE SKY IS FALLING!>>

To my knowledge, you're the first person to ever raise this issue. I think the likelihood of others coming to the same conclusion as yourself to be slight, truth be told.

That said, I do happen to agree that alignment restrictions is out of line with every other 3.5th edition PC race that I have ever seen. I think it is pretty clear that elven culture as a whole leans towards a chaotic outlook (ie. they value individual choice and personal freedoms over an ordered and restrictive society, and believe that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few) but I can't see the harm in a player being allowed to roleplay a lawful elf if he really wanted to. In fact, it would open the door to many roleplaying opportunities that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Does the BRCS need to be changed? I don't know. That brings up a good point, though. Are there any procedures in place to amend official birthright.net content?

[RaspK_FOG]

gazza666, the funny thing is that the restriction need not have anything to do with a penalty, which I still don't how you managed to stick with as a concept; there need be no precedence to make one step or another, right? For example, the weapon familiarity rules were written to make dwarf and gnome fighters more appealing, without any earlier precedence (some may argue that there was precedence in the acquisition of proficiency with a weapon, but it's not the same thing). Likewise, the bard's Bardic Knowledge ability is a derivation of his 2e ability to find out what an item is for.

When you convert something, as physics and chemistry teach us, you have two end products: the converted material, and some of the original that is lost.

[Fizz]

I'm inclined to agree with RaspK_FOG, you can have the restriction without a penalty. Remember, the non-lawfulness of elves is not an imposed restriction of a deity (as alignment restrictions on clerics and paladins are) or a required dedication of a class (as it is for a monk), but rather an inherent trait of the species. It's simply their nature.

Now i suppose in that context a lawful elf would actually be one with a mental or genetic defect, of sorts.

If one were to write a Monster Manual entry for "Elf, Cerilian", the alignment would be "Always non-lawful".

So the question is, should Birthright 3E be a conversion of Birthright to 3E, or should 3E be brought in line to capture the flavor of Birthright?

IMO, being a long-time old-timer fan of the setting, it should be 3E that should be modified to support the setting. If that means making the unprecedented (to 3E) rule that a PC elf must be non-lawful, then so be it.

But ymmv.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

For those interested try following the following linked (and pinned) thread to find the Philosophy of the BRCS.

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2189

Now as to why there is no penalty specified for lawful elves, that was also intentional. We had thought this would best be covered in the discussion of elven society which should be included in the Atlas project. It deserved more ink than a mere 2 sentence "rule" to adequately cover, IMO.

Now if you really want some sort of penalty specified then use the same one as for using shunned schools of magic.



Mages practicing the magic of shunned schools are often themselves shunned by other mages and ostracized by their people.

As for explaining why elves aren't lawful, you could use the same concept as for the 5 oaths. Elves are older than the oaths as a race and some existing ones literally are. Hence their tie to the land is far greater.


An ancient and awesome power binds any mage taking the Five Oaths irrevocably. Once bound, mages find it impossible to violate the oaths, even if they want to do so.

Oh and the main reason elves don't have deities is because they are immortal (not just very long lived, they are truely immortal) - hence they have been around since the beginning and have no reason to "worship" deities. They may (and some do) respect them or at least some of their teachings but they don't "worship" them.

Much of this is covered in Bloodspawn (a free pdf from WotC - it should be read, really it should be).

Great Heart talked some about elven society issues including (IIRC) how some of them "just give up" and fade from existance. Remember they are immortal and don't just die.

[Retillin]

As the rule books stats all elves must be chaotic. This does not mean they cant be Lawful, just they veiw it with distain. There is one "elf" that is Lawful in the BR books. Rove Manslayer, but it is also said that do to his behavior that most elves do not believe that he should be fighting for the way of the elves do to the fact that he is so lawful. So it comes down to flavour. If you dont mind making a CE version of a Paladin, then there should be no problem with a Lawful elf. But it is mostly a racial tabbo more than anything. They believe in free and independt thought above all.

ps. Sorry for the spelling errors and i dont mean to sound preachy

[Fizz]

As the rule books stats all elves must be chaotic. This does not mean they cant be Lawful, just they veiw it with distain.

Well, no. The rule book says elves must follow a non-lawful alignment. The rule book specifically says they can't have a lawful alignment.


There is one "elf" that is Lawful in the BR books. Rove Manslayer, but it is also said that do to his behavior that most elves do not believe that he should be fighting for the way of the elves do to the fact that he is so lawful.

Actually, Rhuobhe Manslayer is neutral evil.


But it is mostly a racial tabbo more than anything. They believe in free and independt thought above all.

Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Those of us who are staunch in the alignment restriction say it's inherent in their nature- the same way that creatures from the Abyss are evil or those from Mechanus are lawful.


-Fizz