Applying Alignment to Classes

[SirAntoine]

Barbarian

- can't be lawful
- if path of the berserker, must be chaotic

Bard

- must be part neutral (e.g. neutral good and lawful neutral both are allowed)

Cleric

- must meet the alignment requirements for their god or goddess

Druid

- must be part neutral (e.g. neutral good and lawful neutral both are allowed)

Fighter

- any

Monk

- must be lawful

Paladin

- must be lawful good or neutral good if oath of devotion
- can't be part evil or part chaotic if oath of the ancients
- can't be part good or part chaotic if oath of vengeance

Ranger

- must be part good

Rogue

- can't be lawful good

Sorcerer

- any, but Optional: must be part good or evil if draconic bloodline, depending on draconic ancestry, or must be part chaotic if wild magic

Warlock

- must meet the alignment requirements for their patron, like they are clerics

Wizard

- any

 

[BRKNdevil]

Why? I don't really see a reason to include these things anymore. Especially since a lot of people ignored them anyways.

 

[Erik42]

Before I began with 5E rules, I only played 1st ed rules, so I still tend to think of classes in those terms - lawful monks, neutral or evil thieves, LG paladins etc. However, in the campaign I'm launching I'm barely using alignment; its pretty much optional for PCs - developing character personality, motives, and background is more important than alignment. I still use alignment for monsters and NPCs that I'm not going to develop as a guideline.

 

[steeldragons]

Some of the old alignment restrictions I never really understood.

Well let me see if I can help with that much, at least.

Why must a Ranger always be good?

Because the ranger class was based on the character of Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings books. Second best analouge would be Robin Hood. Both of whom, inarguably, are "the good guy" fighting against evil. That what the class was [originally] created be.

Why can't a rogue be lawful good? (they aren't all thieves breaking the law)

In fact they are...or were. Pre-3e, there was no "rogue" class. Until 2e, all "rogues" were actually a THIEF. In 2e the term "Rogue" was used for a class group. Both Thieves and Bards were Rogue classes...and, I believe bards were stipulated as having to be neutral (but I think could be lawful neutral if they wanted...memory fails me). So, in fact, YES they were all thieves...if not actively "breaking the law" at the moment, were certainly not against the idea. Saying they were prohibited from being "lawful" made all the sense in the world.

Paladins always requiring a LG alignment meant some gods couldn't have a champion

Quite right. As only some gods should. Only deities that were interested in virtues, civilization and the [relative] "peace" of a society of law, vigorously trained in a disciplined world view of Good and Order could empower champions that were "Paladins."

Sure, any deity could have a "champion". Does your champion have a direct line to divine powers by their sheer pure virtues and valorous spirit? Oh no? Not disciplined enough for that, huh? Chaos only cares for itself, does it? Evil only seeks destruction of the Good? That's too bad. My champion does.

(although I see here that alignment is tied to the oath which is kind of cool).

It does seem 5e is trying to do so in an unspoken way as well, yes. Not nearly enough to my liking, but it's there. Devotion for the traditional "Lawful Good" types, the "Neutral" Ancients and the "Chaotic" "anything goes to achieve my goal" Vengeance guys.

I think nowadays alignment restrictions on classes are as much a waste as class restrictions/level limits for non-human races, no longer really needed. Instead I would make alignment restrictions for organisations that PCs can join.

They are only a waste of time to those who see them as a tethering restriction instead of a parameter for roleplay. Which, granted, is many many folks these days of both new and old schoolers and, basically, just anyone who wants [their character] to behave any way they choose.

The same as class/race restrictions (which I use a few of still to this day), level limits (which I do not use), or any other sort of limitation...a 4-letter word in RPGs for the past decade or so, it seems. My guess is that it's because we are in the immediate gratification computer age of "I should get to play whatever I want, right now [i.e. from level 1], without any restriction or consequence." There are, undoubtedly, several other factors but that's the biggest I see.