Paul_Klein
Explorer
bump
Alignment Restrictions in 3.5
- Thread starter Merlion
- Start date
KDLadage
Explorer
Class by class, here is how I see it:
Barbarian: none [1]
Cleric: restrictions based on religion only
Druid: as per cleric
Fighter: none
Monk: none [2]
Paladin: Lawful only [1]
Ranger: none [1]
Rogue: none
Socerer: none [3]
Wizard: none [3]
[1] Paladins, Rangers and BArbarians are all variations of a theme. They are three approiaches to fighting men. The way the fighter is currently defined (as a feat-gathering machine) should be set up so that Paladins and Rangers are simply Fighters with certain fairly common feat chains. Otherwise, the true Paladin and the true Barbarian should be handled as prestige classes. In my opinion. If I were writing this. But I am sure this is far too radical.
[2] Monks belong in Eastern games, the monks of the west this does not fit and should not be included in the core D&D book, which deals primarilly with Western myth. Again, in my opinion. If I were writing this. But I am sure this is far too radical as well.
[3] Sorcerer and Wizard. The main problem I have here is the fact that the game deals with these as seperate classes. Same spell listing, different rules. This was (in my opinion) a mistake. They should be the same class -- but set up as "if you want your campaign to work this way, then the Sorcerer does this; if you want them top work this way then they do this" -- such that a campaign has either one or the other but not both (by default; a DM is free to do as they choose). Again, in my opinion. If I were writing this. But I am sure this is far too radical as well.
Barbarian: none [1]
Cleric: restrictions based on religion only
Druid: as per cleric
Fighter: none
Monk: none [2]
Paladin: Lawful only [1]
Ranger: none [1]
Rogue: none
Socerer: none [3]
Wizard: none [3]
[1] Paladins, Rangers and BArbarians are all variations of a theme. They are three approiaches to fighting men. The way the fighter is currently defined (as a feat-gathering machine) should be set up so that Paladins and Rangers are simply Fighters with certain fairly common feat chains. Otherwise, the true Paladin and the true Barbarian should be handled as prestige classes. In my opinion. If I were writing this. But I am sure this is far too radical.
[2] Monks belong in Eastern games, the monks of the west this does not fit and should not be included in the core D&D book, which deals primarilly with Western myth. Again, in my opinion. If I were writing this. But I am sure this is far too radical as well.
[3] Sorcerer and Wizard. The main problem I have here is the fact that the game deals with these as seperate classes. Same spell listing, different rules. This was (in my opinion) a mistake. They should be the same class -- but set up as "if you want your campaign to work this way, then the Sorcerer does this; if you want them top work this way then they do this" -- such that a campaign has either one or the other but not both (by default; a DM is free to do as they choose). Again, in my opinion. If I were writing this. But I am sure this is far too radical as well.
Tiberius
Explorer
I'd like to see the paladin's alignment restriction altered to include Lawful Evil as well as Lawful Good, with their Cure Disease ability altered to be Cure/Cause, depending on alignment. I see no reason why the gods of evil could not have highly disciplined and devoted holy warriors as a core class.
-Tiberius
-Tiberius
jester47
First Post
Paladins should be restricted to any lawful and thier positive negative energy should be based on thier good/evil axis just as a cleric's is.
(LE paladins would be "anti"-paladins, however blackguard is a good name, Neutral paladins = cavalier? Good paladins = Templars?)
Barbarians are sort of an Opposite paladin. They should remain Chaotic. Note this is the Class not the entire tribe. One could be a fighter from the same barbarians tribe as a barbarian. The barbarian class is better described as "a warrior who fights savagely."
Druids I would say should have to remain neutral so as to recieve the favors of nature who is by nature neutral. Conversely, they could be any as nature really knows no order or is a higher order.
This is largely campaign dependant.
Monks should be allowed to be any.
I think the rule should be that the campaign defines the Alignment restrictions.
Aaron.
(LE paladins would be "anti"-paladins, however blackguard is a good name, Neutral paladins = cavalier? Good paladins = Templars?)
Barbarians are sort of an Opposite paladin. They should remain Chaotic. Note this is the Class not the entire tribe. One could be a fighter from the same barbarians tribe as a barbarian. The barbarian class is better described as "a warrior who fights savagely."
Druids I would say should have to remain neutral so as to recieve the favors of nature who is by nature neutral. Conversely, they could be any as nature really knows no order or is a higher order.
This is largely campaign dependant.
Monks should be allowed to be any.
I think the rule should be that the campaign defines the Alignment restrictions.
Aaron.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
