New Multi-Classing Rule.

[Trithemius]

Daniel McSorley:
> And that`s all very interesting back-rationalization, but
> there`s nothing published anywhere to indicate that the
> bloodline of Anduiras gave people a lawful tendancy. Quite
> the contrary- there are several counterexamples floating
> around. Why make up a new rule, in this case?

BoR suggests that Bloodline Derivation can be a modifier on personality.
Given that this is D&D and that in D&D personality comes down (in a
large way) to alignment it figures then that Bloodline Derivation can
affect alignment.

I don`t think Kenneth was engaging in back-rationalisation, apologism,
or even good-old-fashioned hoodwinking. I think he was just following
the line of reasoning suggested in BoR (and other places, although less
explicitly).

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

> And that`s all very interesting back-rationalization, but there`s nothing
> published anywhere to indicate that the bloodline of Anduiras gave people
> a lawful tendancy. Quite the contrary- there are several counterexamples
> floating around. Why make up a new rule, in this case?

Because it`s fun.
Not everyone likes simple direct translations of the original canon
material; and I for one would really like alternative (or expanded) rules on
how different derivations of bloodline effect your character.

I think the rule is good, but I`d prefer the bloodline to grant some minor
reward to non-chaotic characters or grant some penalty to chaotic
characters, rather than saying they can`t be chaotic "without a good
reason".

Of course, part of the problem, is also that I don`t really like the system
of alignment as it currently stands in D&D. I`ve got some other ideas for
effecting personality with bloodline, but nothing I`m willing to post until
it`s a little better throught out.

As far as indicating that bloodline of Anduiras gave people a lawful
tendency... I believe this was first mentioned in the Book of Regency (a
free download for BR). If they didn`t actually introduce it there, they at
least elaborated on it quite a bit and made it sound really cool. In fact,
one of dissapointments, isn`t that there aren`t solid rules behind the
guidelines and ideas suggested in the Book of Regency.

Now, you could just dismiss the Book of Regency as a supplement and say it`s
not really core Birthright if you want to, but that book was really
well-written. I highly recommend downloading it if you haven`t already.
(It should be on Birthright.net somewhere.)

[And just as a side note: There are counter-examples to *EVERYTHING* in BR,
not just the influence of bloodlines. A certain Vos paladin comes to
mind...]

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 09:13 AM 9/20/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>I think he was just following the line of reasoning suggested in BoR (and
>other places, although less
>explicitly).

The BoR indicates and a few other sources indicate that characters will
lean towards traits having to do with their bloodline derivation, but
that`s a far cry from enshrining those tendencies into a rule. The
objection that Mr. McSorley raised was to taking that a step further by
making it a "rule" rather than a guideline/suggestion. Mr. Gauck`s
subsequent post would indicate that he would allow more variation than the
original post suggested, and includes a role-playing exception, which begs
the question why bother with it as a rule if it can be both rule excepted
and role-played away so easily? It is, in effect, a rule with no actual
effect other than the same suggestion/guideline presented in the BoR.

My own opinion on this kind of thing is that, in general, it`s a bad idea
to proscribe role-playing issues for players based on the rules, and
alignment is almost always a role-playing decision. (The only real
exception being certain spell effects.) I don`t even like the alignment
restrictions for certain character classes or races; paladins must be LG,
only non-good rangers can have their own species as a favored enemy,
etc. Non-LG paladins work perfectly well in BR, and what if someone wanted
a ranger who hunted only non-good members of his own species? That`d be a
perfectly good justification IMO and it`s not even based on
role-playing. Good rules aid role-playing by being pretty much invisible
to role-playing effects, bad rules force particular role-playing
choices. Bad role-playing, incidentally, violates the rules of whatever
game system is being employed by establishing some sort of exception to a
game mechanic based on a descriptive "role-playing effect" by a
player. Probably the most common example of this is players who write up a
background for their characters that gives them access to a family with
resources far beyond what their character would have alone, but
role-playing is often used to subvert actual game mechanics. (BR
characters are particularly vulnerable to this since there is no "noble"
character class that could be used to describe such valuable familial
ties.) I`ve gotten other background write ups that would indicate the
character has not had several adventures, but the successful nature of
those adventures is already assumed.

This particular rule that proscribes alignment based on derivation makes
both the "game mechanic that proscribes role-playing choices" and the
"role-playing exception to a game mechanic" mistakes by pushing players to
make alignment choices based on a random die roll (if one determines
derivation randomly per the Rulebook) and by giving them a role-playing out
to that self-same rule if they jump through enough role-playing hoops.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel mcsorley" <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:53 PM


> And that`s all very interesting back-rationalization, but there`s nothing
> published anywhere to indicate that the bloodline of Anduiras gave people
> a lawful tendancy. Quite the contrary- there are several counterexamples
> floating around. Why make up a new rule, in this case?

Because I like it that way. It fits my conception of bloodlines.

Let`s not forget there are counter examples in the BR materials for every
occasion. Their inconsistancy doesn`t have to be my own. I`m happy to bend
the rules for a good charatcer concept, but in general, I see alignment and
other personality tendencies associated with bloodlines.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:
> > And that`s all very interesting back-rationalization, but
> > there`s nothing published anywhere to indicate that the
> > bloodline of Anduiras gave people a lawful tendancy. Quite
> > the contrary- there are several counterexamples floating
> > around. Why make up a new rule, in this case?
>
> BoR suggests that Bloodline Derivation can be a modifier on personality.
> Given that this is D&D and that in D&D personality comes down (in a
> large way) to alignment it figures then that Bloodline Derivation can
> affect alignment.
>
> I don`t think Kenneth was engaging in back-rationalisation, apologism,
> or even good-old-fashioned hoodwinking. I think he was just following
> the line of reasoning suggested in BoR (and other places, although less
> explicitly).

I didn`t mean back-rationalisation as a bad thing- it`s the term I came up
with to describe it. He`s retrofitting a new mechanic to the old setting
description, and it`s not an exact match.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Lord Rahvin wrote:
> As far as indicating that bloodline of Anduiras gave people a lawful
> tendency... I believe this was first mentioned in the Book of Regency (a
> free download for BR). If they didn`t actually introduce it there, they at
> least elaborated on it quite a bit and made it sound really cool. In fact,
> one of dissapointments, isn`t that there aren`t solid rules behind the
> guidelines and ideas suggested in the Book of Regency.
>
> Now, you could just dismiss the Book of Regency as a supplement and say it`s
> not really core Birthright if you want to, but that book was really
> well-written. I highly recommend downloading it if you haven`t already.
> (It should be on Birthright.net somewhere.)
>
> [And just as a side note: There are counter-examples to *EVERYTHING* in BR,
> not just the influence of bloodlines. A certain Vos paladin comes to
> mind...]

That`s actually very 3e of them- fewer limitations ;). Fewer alignment
restrictions, more open multiclassing, stuff like that. Anyway,
restricting alignment by bloodline strikes me as a bad idea.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Gary wrote:
> I don`t even like the alignment restrictions for certain character
> classes or races; paladins must be LG, only non-good rangers can have
> their own species as a favored enemy, etc. Non-LG paladins work
> perfectly well in BR, [snip]

Paladins are a bad fit to 3e any way you look at it- they should have been
scrapped, and replaced by multiclassing fighter/clerics and faith-specific
prestige classes. If blackguard is a prestige class, so is paladin. I
think they were mainly left in for backward compatability- people that
wanted to bring in their old paladins from 2nd edition would have bitched
and moaned. And as much as I leave prestige classes disused, this is an
instance where they are the proper mechanic.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:29 PM

> This particular rule that proscribes alignment based on derivation
> makes both the "game mechanic that proscribes role-playing
> choices" and the "role-playing exception to a game mechanic"
> mistakes by pushing players to make alignment choices based on
> a random die roll (if one determines derivation randomly per the
> Rulebook) and by giving them a role-playing out to that self-same
> rule if they jump through enough role-playing hoops.

As I mentioned when I first posted the effects of Bloodline I`m using these
days, and on one or two other occasions, that picking your bloodline
derivation is the first step in constructing characters. You are right that
dicing for your alignment or other personality characteristic is silly
(except maybe for a pick-up game), but that`s not what I do. Since you pick
your derivation, you can do so with the alignment you have in mind.

> Bad role-playing, incidentally, violates the rules of whatever
> game system is being employed by establishing some sort of
> exception to a game mechanic based on a descriptive "role-
> playing effect" by a player. Probably the most common
> example of this is players who write up a background for their
> characters that gives them access to a family with resources far
> beyond what their character would have alone, but role-playing
> is often used to subvert actual game mechanics. (BR characters
> are particularly vulnerable to this since there is no "noble"
> character class that could be used to describe such valuable
> familial ties.)

I actually think that kind of invention is a good thing. The DM can rule
that certain character concepts are not fitting for his campaign. I like to
write up a game prospectus for that reason. It doesn`t eliminate character
concepts better suited to someone *else`s* campaign, but it does cut them
down pretty much. I also think that the DM is like a director and the
player is like an actor and both of them have to work together to create a
good fit between character and setting. Players will tend to come up with
the most awkward character concepts the less the DM provides setting
information and advice to the player. I`ve been able to spitball character
development with all my players my last several campaigns. It was a
reminder of how things good be when I was recruiting for additional players
for my Romulan Star Trek PBeM RPG and someone wanted to play a psionic
Romulan. I suggested a Vulcan defector, and the prospective player moved
along. Somewhere there is a setting happy to have his Romulan psionic.
Another player might have been happy to adjust his character concept to a
Vulcan defector.

I prefer not to leave character creation solely in the hands of the players.
I put on my beret, take up my bullhorn, and sit in my director`s chair and
take an active roll. The actor, er I mean player, might have a really good
idea for a character, but I`m the one who knows the setting.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 08:19 PM 9/19/2002 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Gary wrote:
> > I don`t even like the alignment restrictions for certain character
> > classes or races; paladins must be LG, only non-good rangers can have
> > their own species as a favored enemy, etc. Non-LG paladins work
> > perfectly well in BR, [snip]
>
>Paladins are a bad fit to 3e any way you look at it- they should have been
>scrapped, and replaced by multiclassing fighter/clerics and faith-specific
>prestige classes. If blackguard is a prestige class, so is paladin.

Speak it, brother McSorley! Testify!

Actually, I wouldn`t mind a paladin-like set of "core" classes with much
more general class abilities.... more of a fighter with an emphasis than
the paladin/cleric crossbreed it is now. "Squire" or something to that
effect for the knightly version of the paladin of Anduiras described as a
prestige class, "Sailor" for Nesirie, "Jannisary" or something like it for
the paladins prestige class of Avani. All of those would be based on the
fighter, but with various tweaks, a different list of feats to chose from,
different skill lists, etc. The paladin-prestige classes, of course,
wouldn`t require someone to take on those particular "core" classes (nor
should any prestige class) but they would be the most apt "background"
classes for those paladins.

>I think they were mainly left in for backward compatability- people that
>wanted to bring in their old paladins from 2nd edition would have bitched
>and moaned. And as much as I leave prestige classes disused, this is an
>instance where they are the proper mechanic.

I agree 100%. There are several rules in 3e that seem to be the product of
the hue and cry before it was released. The "off the path" restriction on
paladins (and monks) is one. After playing 3e for a few months I realized
that that restriction is a really bad one and probably based on the amount
of complaints made regarding the multi-classing issues when those were
leaked before 3e`s release.

Even more problems with 3e come from what I`ve recently started calling the
"Forgotten Realms D20" aspect of 3e. That is, many of the things in the 3e
core rules that are taken as D&D cant come from things that are campaign
specific to FR and, to a lesser, extent D&D`s roots in the Greyhawk
campaign. The abilities of several core classes are the kinds of things
that might fit into FR/GH well, but when translated into another campaign
setting they often need to be altered away from their FR/GH aspects.

My point here is that in coming up with a 3e BR campaign one shouldn`t feel
particularly restricted to several aspects of the 3e core rules since they
are based on the FR "core setting." Birthright D20 would probably be a
better way of approaching the subject than by trying to force BR into the
3e mold.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 06:45 PM 9/19/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > And that`s all very interesting back-rationalization, but there`s nothing
> > published anywhere to indicate that the bloodline of Anduiras gave people
> > a lawful tendancy. Quite the contrary- there are several counterexamples
> > floating around. Why make up a new rule, in this case?
>
>Because I like it that way. It fits my conception of bloodlines.
>
>Let`s not forget there are counter examples in the BR materials for every
>occasion. Their inconsistancy doesn`t have to be my own. I`m happy to bend
>the rules for a good charatcer concept, but in general, I see alignment and
>other personality tendencies associated with bloodlines.

Ah, OK. It looked from the original post as if you were saying that
characters got an additional favored class based on their bloodline
derivation and using alignment as an additional prereq. That read as if
characters could still take on another alignment despite their derivation,
but would then lose the additional favored class.

In regards to the inconsistencies in the BR materials, most are only
inconsistent using the 2e "rules". In a 3e conversion issues like
alignment restrictions by race and class, multi- or dual-classing
restrictions, ability score requirements, racial limitations on class level
no longer exist unless they are specifically kept. The Vos paladin NPC is
probably the most obvious one, but since he appears only once he can be
easily ignored. Others are less easily discounted because they are regents
or LTs, but since most of those issues go away in 3e the number of them is
very small.

In fact, while we`re at it, what BR contradictions would remain in a 3e
version of the setting? Restrictions I think should either remain or be
put in place for a 3e BR campaign are:

1. Chaotic alignment for elves.
2. Human/culture requirements for paladins (which should also be a
prestige class as Mr. McSorley recently pointed out, but that`s a whole
`nother issue.)
3. Elf, half-elf or bloodline requirements for wizard or sorcerers
classes using true magic.
4. Elves should still be barred from being priests or druids (but their
wizards should have access to some sort of Nature school of magic.)
5. I would go ahead and just restrict druids to the Rjurik and make up a
sort of specialty priesthood for everyone else who decided to worship Erik.
6. Similarly, I would bar the Vos from the bard class. If someone
really, really wanted some sort of class that operated in a similar manner
in Vos culture and made a good argument then I`d go for something similar,
but with different class abilities.
7. Barbarians should be restricted to the Vos or Rjurik. (Actually, the
barbarian is a goofy "Forgotten Realms D20" class IMO, and should be
rewritten for most campaigns.)

Any others?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.