Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

[Merlion]

Ok one more time...sorry about this guys
tell me what you think needs changing if anything

 

[Berk]

Had to go with paladin any good, if ya wanna know why check my posts under the subject of the same heading in dnd rules.

 

[Tonguez]

Other

I'm hoping that Alignment gets scraped and is replaced by the Alleigances of D20 Modern. If so I'd simply require Paladins to have an Alleigance to something Virtuous (Good, Honour, Charity, Truth, Justice, the Code of Chivalry etc)

 

[Corinth]

Here's my list:

• Paladin: Any Good (w/ no multi-class restrictions either)
• Druid: None (w/ all simple weapons, bows, shields, light armor and medium armor)
• Bard: None (w/ +2 skill pts/level and a revised suite of class abilities)
• Barbarian: None
• Monk: None (w/ no multi-class restrictions and a revised suite of class abilities)

 

[Arnwyn]

No changes, thanks. I'm sure those DMs who don't like it are more than competent enough to remove it on their own.

 

[Merlion]

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

 

[Corinth]

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. 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.

 

[Merlion]

Thank you Corinth. Although I must say most of the druid weapon resitrctions dont bother me...they should be able to use bows though goodness knows...especialy elven druids.

 

[MarauderX]

I don't like the alignment restrictions for clerics at all... what about the crazy fundamentalist who thinks he is doing the right thing for Pelor by systematically killing the town's council (LE)? Perhaps some other diety is granting him the powers, but I think there should be more latitude for alignment swings within the segments.

 

[takyris]

I picked "no changes needed", but that's not entirely accurate.

I believe that Paladins should be Any Lawful -- in my campaign, I have Black Knights, warriors who slay demons and devils but who are ruthless, unmerciful, and quick to kill anyone who gets in their way. They're Lawful Evil, Lawful first. They Detect and Smite Chaos, and gain two-weapon fighting abilities instead of a mount (the Double Sword is their deity's favored weapon).

I also have the Gray Legion, a group of Lawful Neutral Paladin-types. Same deal.

I really like having there be Lawful/Chaotic differentiation in the classes, because I think that L/C gets short shrift in most games. Telling the Bard that his character WILL NOT always obey the letter of the law, or else he'll lose that precious spontaneity that is his true passion, is just as important as telling the party paladin that he WILL uphold his sworn-upon code of honor, even if it hurts him, if he wants to keep his spells.

I've never had a paladin fall except when the player and I had discussed it (and the character was being retired). I'm not a jerk DM who comes up with impossible scenarios for paladins. But they need to stay Lawful. They're powerful enough to require that. It's not just flavor text. (IMO)

-Tacky