Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

[Merlion]

I know. I just dont really agree with any of those interpretations. On that level I agree with some who have posted here...something that specfic shouldnt be in the core rules. And that isnt the only basis for the paladin either. Theres the Arthurian legend of course...sir galahad etc. And the fact that for some reason DnD has always implied that Lawful Good is the REAL, proper, ideal good alignment...for reasons beyond my comprehension.
So yea for a really accurate basic holy warrior class they'd probably have to ditch the paladin name entirly and start over. I just hope that when I get around to playing one I'll be able to find a DM who wont force me to play my holy knight as sir galahad...base classes should really have more than one(or even two or three) options avaible.

 

[theoremtank]

Very true. I just think thats backwards....the core rules shouldnt impose restrictions...especialy flavour based ones on a campaign...the core rules should be basic, and the other stuff added in by DMs as suites there campaign

I agree 100%. Flavor rules should be discarded altogether. It is the job of DM's to insert these types of rules which more often depend on the campaign setting or environment the DM wishes to establish. I can dream up paladins for which all three good alignments make sense.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

Paladin: Any Lawful.
Monk: Any Lawful.
Barbarian: Any non-Lawful
Rogue: Any non-Lawful

 

[Hardhead]

I agree 100%. Flavor rules should be discarded altogether.

OK, so you object to Pallys because they're too Authurian and too flavorful, and God knwos we can't have any flavor in the core rules. So what about monks? They're all Kung-Fu-like. Very clear influence there. If we want to get rid of all flavor, they have to go. Druids are very clearly an idealized celtic nature religion. They ahve tons of flavor and an alignment restriction as well. They'd have to go. Barbarians can only exist in campaigns that have some sort of uncivilized land. They're also clear rip-offs of the Nordic warriors that worked themselves into battle rages. They have to go or be seriously altered.

Pallys aren't the only flavorful classes in the core rules. I'm not sure why you're singling them out.

 

[Merlion]

I agree a lot of the stuff in the monk descreption should be genrisized. And yea the barbarian is really a lot more of a specfic role than a core class.
the name "druid" is highly specfic...the concept really isnt tho...the celts werent the only ones with nature priests.
The paladin IMO especialy in the current rules tries to be generic and specfic at the same time. its there to fill the role of the Holy Warrior yet the restrictions placed on it make into a certain specfic kind of holy warrior right out of the box. I guess I just think they should make up there minds...and it would be my preference for them to finaly decide on it just being the holy warrior...not Sir Galahad or the Holy Warrior of "Law" and "Order".
Not that I dislike the Sir Galahad concept just for the record. I just like it to be easier to do other things.

 

[Hardhead]

The thing is, I don't think you can strip out all the flavor of D&D without leaving it a broken, lame shell of it's former self. I think you'd end up with a crappy game if you did that. I certainly wouldn't buy it. If you want something tweaked for different flavor, that's easy enough to do, but I don't think that means you should remove all the flavor from the core rules.

 

[Merlion]

~shrugs~ then it comes down to a simple difference in taste. and as I said I like a lot of the flavour in the core rules...I just dont like it being part of the core rules....for a player it makes it harder to break out of unless you have an openminded DM.

 

[Umbran]

Then let those DMs place those restrictions. Such things are to be specific to a given setting, and not to be the default state of the game.

Depending on your point of view, even the basic 4 classes are collections of "restrictions" that change the default state of the game. The only game that has no restrictions at all is a classless, alignment-less, very non-D&D system. And even then, it's probably got some restrictions hiding in there somewhere

The core of the game is a toolbox to be used to make a campaign, not a campaign that's ready-to-serve from the get-go.

For a dedicated, advanced homebrewer, this may be correct. For others, though, who are either new at running a game, or who simply don't want to go through quite so much work on their own, having a game with a "default flavor" can be a very useful thing.

 

[Kichwas]

I've always felt the Paladin should be changed to Divine Champion and given specific tweaks based on the 9 alignments.

Such as changing smite evil to smite opposed.

 

[NiTessine]

I'd make paladins available also for NG and LN alignments.