Alignment as a Balancing Factor?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Recently I've noticed that quite a few people consider the alignment restrictions of certain classes, especially the paladin, to be a balancing factor in the class' overall power.

I heartily disagree, as I'd rather play a LG fighter than a paladin (at least in 3.x). I've always considered alignment restrictions to be a purely rp/tradition part of a class, but I was just wondering if I'm in the minority or majority here.

 

[Geoff Watson]

The difference is, a LG Fighter can occasionally do a Chaotic, Evil, or 'iffy' action, while a Paladin is screwed if he does one once.

Combine that with disagreement over what alignment means, makes Paladins a headache.

Geoff.

 

[delericho]

The current ruleset uses alignment restrictions purely for flavour reasons. There would be no balance implications in allowing Paladins of any alignment, for example.

 

[Bagpuss]

Or Warlocks for that matter. Although I kind of like having to play an Evil Warlock.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I haven't played in many campaigns where the alignment restrictions are really all that restrictive. (And, I've played for moe than 25 years, so it's not because I haven't played much.)

But, I also haven't had fascist DMs who would have my paladin come unglued if he forgot to excuse himself after he sneezed in public.

Dave

 

[vulcan_idic]

Or Warlocks for that matter. Although I kind of like having to play an Evil Warlock.

You don't *have* to play an Evil Warlock RAW - You may also play a CN or even CG Warlock.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yeah, but LE characters work better in a party than Chaotic characters.

 

[Umbran]

I heartily disagree, as I'd rather play a LG fighter than a paladin (at least in 3.x). I've always considered alignment restrictions to be a purely rp/tradition part of a class, but I was just wondering if I'm in the minority or majority here.

Fighters are more flexible in how they deal out damage, but when it comes to dealing with the nasty undead and outsiders, the paladin's a better bet. And, since most parties, IME, end up dealing with those nasties, there has to be something to balance that out - and that's the alignment and code thing, which allows the fighter more broad choices.

 

[Nyaricus]

The current ruleset uses alignment restrictions purely for flavour reasons. There would be no balance implications in allowing Paladins of any alignment, for example.

You hit the nail on the head, man.

Here, have a cookie

 

[frankthedm]

Recently I've noticed that quite a few people consider the alignment restrictions of certain classes, especially the paladin, to be a balancing factor in the class' overall power.

I heartily disagree, as I'd rather play a LG fighter than a paladin (at least in 3.x). I've always considered alignment restrictions to be a purely rp/tradition part of a class, but I was just wondering if I'm in the minority or majority here.

I disagree with you. Paladins have abilities the other core classes can not hope to ever have. Utter immunity to Fear and Diseases, unlimited use of a first level spell, A mount that scales in power, that only exists when convenient to you and is ready to make the paladin’s Smite damage climb to unbelievable amounts.

Now some DM unfortunately nerf the paladin’s gifts

They gloss over diseases, not wanting to make the other players feel ‘unheroic’ but the DM unfairly devaluates the paladin’s disease immunity by doing so.

They go out of their way to prevent the paladin from smiting evil he uncovers, with notions of needing “evidence” to punish the wicked. Forgetting that detect evil shows the ‘evidence’ of the misdeeds on the soul.