-6
\$\begingroup\$

I have a PC ranger in my campaign whose alignment just changed to CN from CG. I give the usual 3 strikes and then I change a players alignment. As a ranger though does she lose all the abilities that she has gained?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It is evident to me that many of the 3.5 books were written as to change the rules in order to sell books. Old school gamers understand that a Ranger is a protector of the forest and defender of the weak. R.A. Salvatore has been explaining this for decades. If a ranger acts in a manner not in accordance to this then there should be some consequence just as it would for a paladin. \$\endgroup\$ – DM911 Oct 30 '14 at 3:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DM911 That sounds like a reasonable construction of rangers for your campaign world. It does not sound like a universal. Paladins are exemplars, whether played as LG-only, or specific to a variety of alignments: they embody ideals far beyond the pale of most folks sharing the same alignment. Rangers back in 1st and 2nd edition were not exemplars. Sure, they were based on Robin Hood and Aragorn, but that still leaves a lot of room. In my own world they are both upstanding model citizens for the people their region (although they're not saintly), and genocidal villains. Your mileage may vary. \$\endgroup\$ – Lexible Nov 1 '14 at 23:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DM911 No, there is a reason I specified that you ask it as a separate question: this is a valid question, and we try to avoid having answers get the rug pulled out from under them by an edited question. You are not in any way limited in the number of questions you can ask; you can just ask about Forgotten Realm separately. I also suggest you use the forgotten-realms tag on that question. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Nov 1 '14 at 23:37
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ OK, so clearly as answered here, in 3.5 by default there is no alignment restriction for rangers. It's a legitimate thing to import as a house rule from older editions into newer ones, but yes, probably asking a separate question that actually says that you are doing that would be better. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Nov 2 '14 at 0:03
20
\$\begingroup\$

Absolutely nothing. The ranger class has no alignment requirements and no aligned class features. There is no such thing as an ex-ranger; they cannot “fall.” They aren’t even banned from using spells of conflicting alignments, the way clerics are.1 Using aligned spells is an aligned act, but in most cases a minor one and would only shift alignment over prolonged and frequent use.

Also, there is no such thing as a “usual 3 strikes” unless that is something you have established for your games. I would strongly recommend reconsidering such a system; issues of alignment are too complicated and messy for that. I also strongly suggest that you avoid considering alignment change as a punishment, which appears to be what you are doing here. If a character consistently acts a particular alignment for a prolonged period of time, that would be a good time to talk to the player about the character and his or her alignment.

1 This is debatable; the Spells class feature says “a ranger prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does,” which I take to mean it works like the cleric’s Spells class feature; the cleric’s restriction on aligned spells is listed separately in the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells class feature. Thus, I consider that section not to be included in the ranger’s Spells class feature. This seems consistent with their description, e.g.

Religion: Though a ranger gains his divine spells from the power of nature, he like anyone else may worship a chosen deity.

from the Player’s Handbook, page 46. The statement from Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells about being banned from spells that conflict with a deity’s alignment therefore seems inconsistent, and it also seems out of keeping for nature to impose alignment requirements.

But ultimately, you could argue it the other way; it is at least ambiguous. In that case, the ranger going from CG to CN would simply mean he or she can now choose to use Evil spells, which were previously not allowed.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Mielikki id granting my ranger her spells. My ex-ranger is not attacking in a ranger-like manner. I have already spoken to her about her character, 2X. The third time she acting in a way that caused her to be attacked by another member of the party. \$\endgroup\$ – DM911 Oct 29 '14 at 2:39
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @DM911 What is a "ranger-like manner"? I don't recall ever reading anything about this. "Is there a publication specific for non-good rangers?" Yes, it's the Player's Handbook. A ranger can be good, neutral, or evil as they choose. Seriously, both your comments were addressed in this answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Miniman Oct 29 '14 at 2:52
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ Further historical note: Rangers were required to be of good alignment in A D&D (both 1st and 2nd edition). This requirement does not exist in later editions, but may be what the OP is referring to as ranger - like \$\endgroup\$ – Carl T Oct 29 '14 at 3:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.