D&D 3E/3.5 Alignment Restrictions in 3.5
- Thread starter Merlion
- Start date
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
So you are saying that it is more logical for clerics to be the exact alignment of their gods?
If so, I'd have to agree.
If so, I'd have to agree.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Yeah I do disagree and I would point out the paladin code.
For all that is said about clerics you have to note that their religions are no way as defined and restrictive as the paladin. The demand that Paladins have to be LG only is nicely backed up by their code of ethics.
For the record I would prefer to see clerics held to account rather than the current wishy washy 1/2 paragraph description that "describes" their religion.
For all that is said about clerics you have to note that their religions are no way as defined and restrictive as the paladin. The demand that Paladins have to be LG only is nicely backed up by their code of ethics.
For the record I would prefer to see clerics held to account rather than the current wishy washy 1/2 paragraph description that "describes" their religion.
Last edited:
Merlion
First Post
I think the "paladin code" is quite a ways out of the concept of a paladin as a holy knight. things like that should be added into each campaign individualy not forced on any player who wants to play the deity-backed knight in shining armour.
I agree about clerics in principle as far as more detailed religions(tenets rules etc) would be good, but again, thats a game by game thing
I agree about clerics in principle as far as more detailed religions(tenets rules etc) would be good, but again, thats a game by game thing
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
A generic holy warrior (not cleric) for each god could be a goer. You would want a good warrior base, BAB, HD, good fort and proficiencies. Depending on their deity and alignment they would be eligible for particular packages, i.e. spell lists, specific companions and powers.
They should have differing (sub) names but only the LG one should be called a paladin. The name is important to me.
There was a thread with "Avengers"(CG) and a NG variant, don't know what. By memory this was before 1st ed. No idea what their powers were or how strict they were.
They should have differing (sub) names but only the LG one should be called a paladin. The name is important to me.
There was a thread with "Avengers"(CG) and a NG variant, don't know what. By memory this was before 1st ed. No idea what their powers were or how strict they were.
Merlion
First Post
Out of curiosity, what exactly matters so much about the name? Paladin Champion and Templar all mean essentialy the same thing. Do you just like it a lot or is there another signifigance?
And again my only big thing is I dont think an interpreation of an alignment and a classes relationship to that alignment should be imposed on the game by the core rules especialy not as strongly as with the Paladin
And again my only big thing is I dont think an interpreation of an alignment and a classes relationship to that alignment should be imposed on the game by the core rules especialy not as strongly as with the Paladin
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
The code is based heavily on the Arthurian legend. Most of the knights of the round table fell short of their code, only the most elite in their number, Arthur, Galahad and his dad, Lancelot met the measure. By some versions even Lancelot fell because of his torn loyalties between King and his Queen/lover.
Weakening the code would move away from this basis, leading the paladin concept to please noone. Maybe I speak too boldly, I mean it would not please me.
Lancelot would not rub shoulders with those without honour and compassion.
Weakening the code would move away from this basis, leading the paladin concept to please noone. Maybe I speak too boldly, I mean it would not please me.
Lancelot would not rub shoulders with those without honour and compassion.
Last edited:
Merlion
First Post
Well from what I've seen in this thread I'm not the only person who doesnt like that restriction.
Your right of course. Although as someone else...Berk maybe..pointed out the Paladin and cleric concepts also owe much to the Templars and such of the Crusades.
Again I just think all thease things should be campaign issues. The core rules should be as generic as possible. And not impose one interpretation of an alignment that can have many interpretations forcibly on a class.
I understand and greatly respect your love of that particular character concept. I just think the core rules should make it easier for players to play other versions of a similiar archtype.
Your right of course. Although as someone else...Berk maybe..pointed out the Paladin and cleric concepts also owe much to the Templars and such of the Crusades.
Again I just think all thease things should be campaign issues. The core rules should be as generic as possible. And not impose one interpretation of an alignment that can have many interpretations forcibly on a class.
I understand and greatly respect your love of that particular character concept. I just think the core rules should make it easier for players to play other versions of a similiar archtype.
