Ranger/Druids

Remove all ads!

I just read an old post in which I was suggesting that the combination of Rangers and Druids should be possible and I noticed the Fat Egg agreed with me. Intelligent fellow that Fat Egg. Who else thinks this would make sense. They both are nature related and Ranger/Druid makes more sense than Fighter/Druid. They would have to be True Neutrals unless Druids can be other than that in the 3rd edition rules.

 

I think that since the ranger, in 2nd ed rules was a fighter with some nifty bonus's was the reason he couldn't multi, although I think in 3rd ed, since the multi rules have changed, and very dramaticly too, it seems very possible, we'll find out in about a month.

 

Sounds cool, but aren't Rangers only allowed to be good-aligned?

 

Um... No. They're both nature related, but the Druid tries to keep it completely balanced (hence the true neutralism), and the Ranger is more like a protector, militant and defensive (which why they must be good). I had some other points, but they've seemed to slip away...

 

Thanks Gunthar! And obviously I agree.

 

Yes rangers do have to be good, but a lot of rules are being scrapped and rewritten so the druids might actually get some deacent rules that make them playable in AD&D.

 

I think that Druids should be Neutral Good, Neutral Evil, or True Neutral and nothing else. It'd allow a lot more flexibility.

 

I agree. A Ranger/Druid makes more since than a Ranger/Cleric, which was in 2nd Ed. The expanded Druid aligment also makes sense. I looked playing a Druid in 2nd Ed. but the True Neutral was so hard to RP.

 

You couldn't play a ranger/cleric in AD&D 2nd ed. you could only multi class using the fighter, mage, cleric and thief classes.

 

With the new rules I saw something about having evil or neutral Paladins. This makes sense because evil gods and religions would have their own religious fighters. So for the Ranger I can see having a neutral one, since protecting the woods is maintaining the balance and not actualy doing good specificaly. An evil Ranger could be part of an evil forest cult or aligned with evil forest dwelling creatures. The world doesn't rotate only around good.

 

About time they did that, although I did manage to get rules for evil paladins (anti paladins)a while back. And the worlds in which the games are set don't revolve around good, no, but lets face it, almost all adventures are written for "good orientated parties" and I think thats what the games all about, Go be the heroes sort of thing. Besides the rule when I'm running a game is players can't be evil because it saves on a LOT of stupid stuff, but then maybe thats just my players.

 

With the ability to create your own scenarios in Neverwinter Nights, I'd like to see some more emphasis on evil because it would actualy be possible to be evil then.

 

My problem with evil characters and BG was that so many quests put your reputation up, pissing off the evil people in the party. I think that the real evil people would want people thinking highly of them so that they're easier to manipulate and fleece. The reputation should have had nothing to do with alignment, apart from possibly keeping track of if you has to be good or nuetral characters lost thier abilities for not acting the correct way.