D&D 5E Should classes retain traditional alignment restrictions in 5E?

[Trolls]

Good Paladin:
This character is noble and valorous, puts the protection of the innocent and his allies above all else, and strives to see that evil in all its forms is vanquish in the name of his patron deity. Because of his devotion to his cause, his god rewards him with the power to protect and heal the innocent, and channel holy power through his blade.

Neutral Paladin:
This character cares not one jot about Joe Bloggs, and she isn't looking to save the world. She wouldn't lift a finger to save her next door neighbour if it meant a scratch on one of her friends. Some call her selfish, but she knows the truth: the most divine connection one can make in the world is with her friends and her family. She worships not the god of valour, but the god of love, who recognises the sacrifices one must make in the most powerful of relationships. Because of her devotion, her god rewards her with the power to heal and protect her loved ones, and destroy those who threaten them.

Evil Paladin:
This character knows that power is his birthright, to be wrested from the weak and wielded like a sword. He knows that power never comes without a price, and pledges his service to the dark god to gain power in the mortal world. For his service, and for the blood he spills, he is granted the power to bolster those who would do his bidding to better serve their master, and destroy those who would threaten the balance of power in his direction.

---

These are three admittedly brief but valid backbones of a character, all of whom could use the paladin class. Crucially, none of the three would have to change the base mechanics of the character class. Things like divine challenge, channel divinity, smites, calling a mount and lay on hands are all valid tools of the three, while also serving the more common holy-knight-of-goodness archetype.

Is it really fair to discount those second two ideas just because they're different to the traditional role the paladin class serves?

Must all wizards be book worms? Must all fighters be grizzled veterans? Must all assassins only want to kill for money or sport? Must all bards be wandering layabouts? Must all barbarians be illiterate?

----

EDIT: I wanted to address this point separately:

There's also that one guy who wants to play a vampire. Should THAT be in the PHB? What about the guy who wants to be a ninja? A winged elf? A dragon? Should THOSE options be supported out the gate as well?

Of course not, we can't support every character idea out of the gate. That's not what this is about. This is about when a character idea does have mechanical support (e.g., a paladin with a different personality), but closing it off anyway. It's like printing the winged elf in the PHB1, but then drawing a big line through it and saying "you can't play this because it's not traditional".

 

[trancejeremy]

As mentioned in the thread about Paladins, they are not holy warriors. They were good and virtuous knights, the very best that served Charlemagne, his "peers".

Paladins and alignment come from the same source, Poul Anderson's 3 of Hearts, 3 of Lions. IMHO, you simply can't separate the two without Paladin losing all its meaning.

With that said, there have been things similar to paladins of other alignments. But they shouldn't be paladins - that term has a very specific meaning, it shouldn't be revised to mean something else.

 

[Destil]

I'm really hoping that alignment is a module you can add or remove at will (or possibly two for law/chaos and good/evil). So I would expect that, even if there are restrictions, it's not required that DMs use them (since it's not required that DM's use alignment).

 

[Remathilis]

I think we can lay this to rest with quick glance at 4th Edition's latest revision (bold emphasis mine).

PALADIN
Paiadins are holy warriors, defenders of good and enemies of evil. Paladins are well trained with their weapons and armor, but they augment that skill with divine powers that allow them to shield their allies and smite their enemies. A single paladin can turn the tide of an entire war through a combination of skill at arms and inspiring leadership. As icons of virtue and heroism, paladins are a deadly threat to those who would rule through fear, intimidation, and violence.
Paladins typically wander the land either alone or in small groups. They seek out wrongs to right and villainy to defeat. Most paladins begin as squires to more experienced holy warriors. Through training and arduous tests, a squire's bravery, battle skill, and ethics are all tested to see if the squire is worthy of becoming a paladin.

Ladies and Gentlemen, even FOURTH EDITION dumped the "evil paladin" motif in 2010. But all was not lost, for evil paladins did return. In the Heroes of Shadow supplement, where they belong.

 

[Trolls]

As mentioned in the thread about Paladins, they are not holy warriors. They were good and virtuous knights, the very best that served Charlemagne, his "peers".

Paladins and alignment come from the same source, Poul Anderson's 3 of Hearts, 3 of Lions. IMHO, you simply can't separate the two without Paladin losing all its meaning.

With that said, there have been things similar to paladins of other alignments. But they shouldn't be paladins - that term has a very specific meaning, it shouldn't be revised to mean something else.

I think we can lay this to rest with quick glance at 4th Edition's latest revision (bold emphasis mine).

These two quotes sort of play into the same idea, so I think they should have the same answer:

Honestly, I have no problem with the 4E flavour text, and it's great to see the history of the term paladin and recognise it's origin, with flavour text to support that archetype. These kind of things are great for new players looking for inspiration and old ones that like to play up to a historical role.

What isn't acceptable is to limit other players that try to skew that archetype, or use the mechanics in the class for something that's functionally the same, but with an interesting twist.

Look at this in a simple win/lose framework.

If restrictions go in, people who want to try something a little different lose out.

If restrictions are left out, people are free to play what they want to play, and nobody loses out. (Or do they? I'm interested to hear what you guys think.)

 

[Remathilis]

What isn't acceptable is to limit other players that try to skew that archetype, or use the mechanics in the class for something that's functionally the same, but with an interesting twist.

Look at this in a simple win/lose framework.

If restrictions go in, people who want to try something a little different lose out.

If restrictions are left out, people are free to play what they want to play, and nobody loses out. (Or do they? I'm interested to hear what you guys think.)

You're proving my point. You're skewing the archetype. That is something that needs to come later, in a supplement. The core should be the archetypes. They should encourage the default assumptions first, then allow supplemental material to expand it. That is the stuff of splatbooks.

 

[Charleois]

Most alignment restrictions were forced and awkward. But if people want to play a champion of evil or a free spirit, let them play another class.

And assassins are supposed to be treacherous, evil and damned for all time.

 

[Trolls]

You're proving my point. You're skewing the archetype. That is something that needs to come later, in a supplement. The core should be the archetypes. They should encourage the default assumptions first, then allow supplemental material to expand it. That is the stuff of splatbooks.

Why? If all the mechanics are there, and fit with the idea I have in mind, why wait?

Understand that I'm not arguing for a set of different paladin-like classes, with different abilities depending on the character's alignment.
I'm arguing for one paladin class, designed as if it were the traditional holy warrior, paragon of goodness, with abilities that inform that archetype. Then just leave off that one line "must be lawful good", and let the player decide if those abilities fit with the character concept they have in mind.

Perhaps 95% of the time it's going to be the archetype that we all know and love, but why is it a problem if 5% want to skew it for their own character? In other words, why is it a problem if I decide that all the paladin abilities designed for a lawful good character also happen to fit with my interpretation of a specific lawful neutral or chaotic good character?

There's a reason why I've bolded 'encourage' in your post above. It's something I agree with. The core can encourage archetypes, and provide support for them, but it shouldn't limit you to them.

 

[grimslade]

I dislike alignment. It is too fuzzy to suit the purpose of restrictions. Non-lawful bard? Meter, rhyme and rhythm are pretty orderly things. Lawful good leads to the can you roast pagan babies and still be good? Detect Evil says: Fire up the Cue! We're having orc baby bacon tonight.
I like the archetypes but unless alignment becomes a lot closer to a code of behavior, it is too fuzzy to restrict or enable.

 

[Starglyte]

Never liked alignment restrictions. I remember reading some of the old AD&D source books and finding that even TSR didn't follow some of their alignment restrictions. I figure that is one thing from the past editions that can stay buried.