so, if a druid under the influences of Virtuepak becomes good (or evil), what, do they become a cleric?
always thought, since alignment [arguably] is outside the purview of the physical world, that, for example, shadow druids have necessarily evil tendencies (if not, individually, full alignment shifts) when they decide to massacre people who might not know any better (e.g. frontier settlers, SUV enthusiasts...) but this just can't be an issue in 2e, even though neutral good was added (admittedly, in the more-than-line-toeing unearthed arcana) in 1e. and if they're all about balance, only adding neutral good as an option is obviously silly. i think 'only neutral alignmentS' is entirely feasible - the loose communication between druid sects being the way of ensuring a balance of that spectrum. the CN camps have more shapeshifters, the LN more totemics, the NE more avengers, study of anti-personnel tactics [contagion, dolorous decay, poison and so on], NG play more with faeries...
not that i'm against the massacre of suv enthusiasts.
frankly, everybody needs to get with the 3e program. (except for the 'bards can't be lawful' bit; i'm partial to the herald from the 2e bard's handbook in that respect. and i'm still wrapping my head around rangers having a choice of ANY alignment... but that whole tradition-bound thing, i guess... oh no, d&d's not based on tolkien! how could you suggest such a thing? then we'd lose royalties!!! now, about this RANGER with damage bonuses against EVIL HUMANOIDS and preternatural TRACKING skills and... o well, at least they got nerfed and less specialized)
if it hadn't been for folks being willing to question and rewrite/publish 'what's allowed' we'd still have dwarves that couldn't get farther than 9th level in fighter, and elves 11th level in 'magic-user' [what a smooth name]. and a cleric of WAR AND BATTLE not being able to use edged weapons... please. at least forgotten realms 2e wised up a >bit< with specialty priests.