HYPERBOREA / Alignments of Spell-Using Subclasses? ("Official" Answer)

**Posted by Blackadder23** 7/03/2014 3:06 pm

This was discussed briefly before, but I can't find the thread.

Let's say for the sake of argument I'm currently involved in creating a huge number of premade starting PCs for AS&SH. And let's say I'm interested in making them as "official" as possible because I plan to share them. I need clarification on one point: under the "official" rules, must subclasses such as warlocks, legerdemainists, and shamans meet the alignment restrictions of their school(s) of magic?

I gather the "official" answer is "yes", or at least that's what I remember Jeff saying with respect to shamans who employ necromancy. I must say I think this is a point that could stand to be clarified in the next printing, because I never would have supposed this from the rules as written. Rangers and bards can employ druid spells without being Neutral, so it really didn't occur to me that the alignment restrictions of necromancers or druids might be relevant to the shaman class. In any event, assuming this is correct, I believe it creates the following alignment restrictions:

"Standard" warlocks can be any alignment.
Warlocks who are death soldiers must be CE, LE, or N.
Warlocks who are fire lords must be CE, CG, or N.
Warlocks who are ice lords must be LE, LG, or N.
Shamans who are cleric/magicians must be CE or CG (unless the restriction on Neutral clerics is lifted).
Shamans who are cleric/necromancers must be CE.
Shamans who are druid/magicians or druid/necromancers must be N.
"Standard" legerdemainists and mountebanks can be any alignment except for LG.
Legerdemainists who are fire thieves must be CE, CG, or N.
Legerdemainists who are ice thieves must be LE or N.

I have no major problem with this, other than some combinations being quite restricted in alignment choice, but I would like to know if this is the intent of the RAW. Thanks!

**Posted by DMPrata** 7/03/2014 6:48 pm

Blackadder23 wrote:
This was discussed briefly before, but I can't find the thread.

Let's say for the sake of argument I'm currently involved in creating a huge number of premade starting PCs for AS&SH. And let's say I'm interested in making them as "official" as possible because I plan to share them. I need clarification on one point: under the "official" rules, must subclasses such as warlocks, legerdemainists, and shamans meet the alignment restrictions of their school(s) of magic?

I gather the "official" answer is "yes", or at least that's what I remember Jeff saying with respect to shamans who employ necromancy. I must say I think this is a point that could stand to be clarified in the next printing, because I never would have supposed this from the rules as written. Rangers and bards can employ druid spells without being Neutral, so it really didn't occur to me that the alignment restrictions of necromancers or druids might be relevant to the shaman class. In any event, assuming this is correct, I believe it creates the following alignment restrictions:

"Standard" warlocks can be any alignment.
Warlocks who are death soldiers must be CE, LE, or N.
Warlocks who are fire lords must be CE, CG, or N.
Warlocks who are ice lords must be LE, LG, or N.
Shamans who are cleric/magicians must be CE or CG (unless the restriction on Neutral clerics is lifted).
Shamans who are cleric/necromancers must be CE.
Shamans who are druid/magicians or druid/necromancers must be N.
"Standard" legerdemainists and mountebanks can be any alignment except for LG.
Legerdemainists who are fire thieves must be CE, CG, or N.
Legerdemainists who are ice thieves must be LE or N.

I have no major problem with this, other than some combinations being quite restricted in alignment choice, but I would like to know if this is the intent of the RAW. Thanks!

I'm not "official", but IMO, I agree with your limitations on warlocks and legerdemainists. As to shamans, I would limit those who practice necromancy to non-good alignments, but I wouldn't worry about the cleric/druid alignment restrictions.

**Posted by Ghul** 7/05/2014 7:26 pm

DMPrata wrote:
Blackadder23 wrote:
This was discussed briefly before, but I can't find the thread.

Let's say for the sake of argument I'm currently involved in creating a huge number of premade starting PCs for AS&SH. And let's say I'm interested in making them as "official" as possible because I plan to share them. I need clarification on one point: under the "official" rules, must subclasses such as warlocks, legerdemainists, and shamans meet the alignment restrictions of their school(s) of magic?

I gather the "official" answer is "yes", or at least that's what I remember Jeff saying with respect to shamans who employ necromancy. I must say I think this is a point that could stand to be clarified in the next printing, because I never would have supposed this from the rules as written. Rangers and bards can employ druid spells without being Neutral, so it really didn't occur to me that the alignment restrictions of necromancers or druids might be relevant to the shaman class. In any event, assuming this is correct, I believe it creates the following alignment restrictions:

"Standard" warlocks can be any alignment.
Warlocks who are death soldiers must be CE, LE, or N.
Warlocks who are fire lords must be CE, CG, or N.
Warlocks who are ice lords must be LE, LG, or N.
Shamans who are cleric/magicians must be CE or CG (unless the restriction on Neutral clerics is lifted).
Shamans who are cleric/necromancers must be CE.
Shamans who are druid/magicians or druid/necromancers must be N.
"Standard" legerdemainists and mountebanks can be any alignment except for LG.
Legerdemainists who are fire thieves must be CE, CG, or N.
Legerdemainists who are ice thieves must be LE or N.

I have no major problem with this, other than some combinations being quite restricted in alignment choice, but I would like to know if this is the intent of the RAW. Thanks!
I'm not "official", but IMO, I agree with your limitations on warlocks and legerdemainists. As to shamans, I would limit those who practice necromancy to non-good alignments, but I wouldn't worry about the cleric/druid alignment restrictions.

I concur with David's answer. Also, I agree that all of this should be clarified in the next printing.

**Posted by Blackadder23** 7/05/2014 9:45 pm

Thanks guys!

**Posted by Rastus_Burne** 2/12/2015 10:56 pm

Blackadder, have you made much progress with you 'huge number' of premade characters? I for one would find that a helpful supplement.

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 2/13/2015 7:35 am

R-B, see here:

http://hyperborea.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=248

**Posted by Blackadder23** 2/13/2015 9:12 am

What Handy said!

**Posted by Rastus_Burne** 2/13/2015 4:12 pm

That must have taken some serious amount of time! What a resource

**Posted by Blackadder23** 2/13/2015 4:33 pm

Rastus_Burne wrote:
That must have taken some serious amount of time! What a resource

Yeah, I did it all by hand. It took a couple of weeks.

Luckily my mule-headed determination takes over where my technical expertise ends.

**Posted by Rastus_Burne** 2/13/2015 4:36 pm

I will say, character generation in AS&SH is a very streamlined process. I find it quicker than 1e. But still, to make that many: a commendable effort.

**Posted by Blackadder23** 2/13/2015 4:40 pm

Thanks. It helped that I first created standardized "packs" of equipment. Buying equipment is probably the most time-consuming part of character creation otherwise.

**Posted by Rastus_Burne** 2/13/2015 4:42 pm

I can see that. Along with picking spells.

**Posted by Maezar** 2/21/2015 2:06 pm

I've got the CSOWA updated with these clarifications. Watch for beta 1.14 soon.

PS: Where can I learn about these "ice" classes?

**Posted by Handy Haversack** 2/21/2015 7:24 pm

I believe Scaly published the cryomancer in AFS.