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

[Hassassin]

The question isn't whether or not the PC should be bound. The question is whether or not the player should be bound - and, in particular, bound to the GM as the arbiter of alignment at the table (which is the standard D&D approach).

Ah, I think this again comes down to play style.

I have the impression that your style is more storyteller type narrativist, while mine is first person narrativist and simulationist, where everything outside the player's character is in the DM's control. Nothing wrong with either approach, of course.

I think the question is if it's easier to add mechanics for how PCs are bound to their deities or remove them. As you say, having them is the standard D&D approach.

 

[pemerton]

I LIKE Alignment and the 9-points both as a "force/make up of the [game] universe" and as an aid for players (new and old) to use in their character's personality, and I want my players' PCs to have an ethical/moral set of beliefs and incorporated in their role-play.

<snip>

If that sort of thing does not interest you or your DM or your group as a whole, then just leave it out.

I enjoy it when my players have their PC's express moral beliefs. Of the PCs in my current game, one is a paladin of the Raven Queen, one a ranger-cleric of the Raven Queen, one a warpriest of Moradin, one a divine philosopher and wizard serving Erathis, Ioun, Vecna and (formerly) the Raven Queen, and one is a sorcerer demonskin adept who is also part of a drow-elf crossover cult devoted to Corellon and to undoing the sundering of the elves.

But I don't need an alignment system to make this stuff part of the game. If anything, I find I get more of this stuff in my game when I make space for the players to take the lead themselves.

Ah, I think this again comes down to play style.

I have the impression that your style is more storyteller type narrativist,

Not "storyteller" - at least, I associate that word with GM power over the story. But you are right that I like player-led narrativism which isn't necessarily confined to the players sticking to a first person approach.

 

[Hassassin]

Not "storyteller" - at least, I associate that word with GM power over the story. But you are right that I like player-led narrativism which isn't necessarily confined to the players sticking to a first person approach.

Yes, that's what I meant. My game analysis terminology may suck.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I hate alignment restrictions on classes. Only LG gods have paladins? Only evil people can be assassins? Only good people can be rangers? One cannot be a lawful barbarian (one who keeps his word and honors the traditions of his tribe, both traits of lawful alignments and both common aspects of "barbarians" in both real life and literature/movies)?

Ridiculous. 4e did a great service by removing alignment restrictions from classes and all of the crap like detect/smite alignment. I will be extremely disappointed if that progress is regressed in the new edition.

 

[Hassassin]

I hate alignment restrictions on classes. Only LG gods have paladins?

Again, LN, NG and some other gods also have paladins. Should a CE god of destruction have them?

4e did a great service by removing alignment restrictions from classes and all of the crap like detect/smite alignment.

I don't really like detect evil, but I think smite should be there. Maybe as smite fiends and undead, so that it would depend on creature type instead of alignment? Detect could do the same I suppose.

 

[Electronic]

I think alignment should be removed from the game, so no, classes should not have alignment restrictions.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Again, LN, NG and some other gods also have paladins. Should a CE god of destruction have them?

Yes.

I see "paladins" as divine champions, the knight-templar-esque classic Paladin being only one of many variations thereof. I see no reason why only L/G gods would have them in their service.

I don't really like detect evil, but I think smite should be there. Maybe as smite fiends and undead, so that it would depend on creature type instead of alignment? Detect could do the same I suppose.

I'm fine with smites that work based on things like creature type. Smite fiends, smite undead, magic circle against elementals, those things are fine with me. Paladins running around spamming detect evil, on the other hand, are not.

 

[pemerton]

Is it less evil to kill something quickly and painlessly, or to stab it repeatedly with a big bit of sharp metal until it dies?

If a paladin can be good and kill things, I see no reason why an assassin can't be good too. Do you really have to kill things while people are watching to be considered good?

Well, this would be a question of what moral standards you want your game to reflect. My understanding of pre-Christian Norse law codes is that murder meant killing someone by treachery, in their sleep, in the dark, etc. So those codes answer "yes" to your second question.

I also think this exposes an issue with alignment. The game tries to define "good" by reference to modern (enlightenment-inspired) political values, but is set in a period, and includes archetypes (like the knight, and the monk) that are inspired by pre-modern values, including dignity and honour.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really like detect evil, but I think smite should be there. Maybe as smite fiends and undead, so that it would depend on creature type instead of alignment? Detect could do the same I suppose.

On the smite front, 4e handles this by giving paladins access to melee radiant attacks, which is de facto smite undead because nearly all undead are vulnerable to radiant damage. (Not demons or devils, though.) So damage types is another way of achieving "smite" without alignment.

 

[Hassassin]

On the smite front, 4e handles this by giving paladins access to melee radiant attacks, which is de facto smite undead because nearly all undead are vulnerable to radiant damage. (Not demons or devils, though.) So damage types is another way of achieving "smite" without alignment.

Make it holy damage and it sounds fine. There was a poll somewhere about whether radiant and holy damage both are needed and I really don't see the benefit.