Elven alignment restriction

[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 ( 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? ) is closer to what I mentioned; after all, I only said "elfen creatures," not elves.

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.

[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.