Why is the Arcane Trickster nonlawful? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why is the Arcane Trickster nonlawful? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
eagleye
10-22-07, 03:04 PM The rogue has no alignment restrictions and neither has the wizard/sorcerer. Are they only expecting rogue turned bards (who do have the lawful restriction) to go for the arcane trickster? The way I see it, it could take a lot of dedication and hard work to excel in both paths so a lawful character might certainly fit. As a DM I would certainly allow for this, but I was just wondering what the idea was behind this.
Jaxgaret
10-22-07, 04:18 PM I'm guessing it has to do with the *trickster* aspect of the class.

Not all Rogues are tricksters, but all Arcane Tricksters could be, by their very nature. WotC has apparently decided that being a trickster means having a Chaotic bent.

Hopefully this thread will not now devolve into a protracted alignment argument :)
The_Shaman
10-23-07, 04:22 PM The way I see it, it could take a lot of dedication and hard work to excel in both paths so a lawful character might certainly fit. As a DM I would certainly allow for this, but I was just wondering what the idea was behind this.

I don't think there is a very solid reason to make it non-lawful, really. It's just something WotC came up with, probably due to the trickster part being "innately" non-lawful - or maybe they had a particular group/organization/archetype they wanted to focus on, just like with the assassin. If you want to open it to all, be my guest. However, I would like to remind you that hard work or dedication are not in any way restricted to lawful alignments.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
eagleye 10-22-07, 03:04 PM	The rogue has no alignment restrictions and neither has the wizard/sorcerer. Are they only expecting rogue turned bards (who do have the lawful restriction) to go for the arcane trickster? The way I see it, it could take a lot of dedication and hard work to excel in both paths so a lawful character might certainly fit. As a DM I would certainly allow for this, but I was just wondering what the idea was behind this.
Jaxgaret 10-22-07, 04:18 PM	I'm guessing it has to do with the trickster aspect of the class. Not all Rogues are tricksters, but all Arcane Tricksters could be, by their very nature. WotC has apparently decided that being a trickster means having a Chaotic bent. Hopefully this thread will not now devolve into a protracted alignment argument :)
The_Shaman 10-23-07, 04:22 PM	The way I see it, it could take a lot of dedication and hard work to excel in both paths so a lawful character might certainly fit. As a DM I would certainly allow for this, but I was just wondering what the idea was behind this. I don't think there is a very solid reason to make it non-lawful, really. It's just something WotC came up with, probably due to the trickster part being "innately" non-lawful - or maybe they had a particular group/organization/archetype they wanted to focus on, just like with the assassin. If you want to open it to all, be my guest. However, I would like to remind you that hard work or dedication are not in any way restricted to lawful alignments.