Elven alignment restriction

[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).