Alignment Restrictions in 3.5

[Merlion]

Well thats fine...its just...neither of those things really imply special discipline. The warrior part maybe...but we have chaotic fighters...and the holy part? well I guess you could bring up that holy could simply mean sacred to a belief system...still nothing to do with disicpline though. and in DnD Holy generaly means Good.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Bard, Barbarian and Monk: Any
Paladin: Any Good

 

[Mercule]

Paladin: Rename to Holy Warrior, change to Any Lawful.

Thats one of the things I really wonder about...whats being a holy warrior got to do with law?

It's not just being a holy warrior. Paladin is a fairly specific archetype. Probably enough so that it's become outdated.

The code for the paladin has always been more restrictive than simply LG. Honestly, without that restriction, I don't think paladins are a worthwhile inclusion.

Then again, I'd like to see paladins cut from the core class list and added as a PrC.

So, I say, keep Paladins strictly LG. Loosen Monks to any non-Chaotic. Keep Barbarians as-is. Let Bards be any (the king's loyal historian/advisor, anyone?) Keep druids as-is, but loosen the weapons.

 

[Merlion]

Yea I guess you could have the "paladin"(in other words, Sir Galahad" as a prestige class, but I think a core class, generic holy champion is still a good idea...and the easiest way to do that is just have the paladin(which is just another word for champion) just have to be good.

 

[Hardhead]

I agree with the majority of voters. No changes.

Maybe make the Monk any non-chaotic.

But I completly disagree with those here that think the classes with flavor should be stripped down into generic flavorless cardboard. Well, they didn't put it that way, but that's the impression I got.

D&D has a very strong "implied setting." There are elves, who are great practitioners of magic (prefered class: wizard). There energy weapons that cut through armor (brilliant energy weapon mod). There are gnomes who are known tricksters (prefered class: illusionist).

There's a goodly bit of flavor in the PHB, and DMs can play that flavor down or up, or excise it, as they see fit. Hell, Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed is designed with the idea of "what about a PHB with completly different flavor?"

The Paladin is part of that. So is the monk.

Pallys are holy warriors who follow a strict code of honor, making them LG by definition. Any other alignment doesn't fit the flavor. You can have holy warriors of other alignments, but then it's not a paladin any more.

If you want to remove all of D&D's "implied setting" as Mr Cook calls it, you're going to need to strip a lot more than a couple classes.

 

[Hardhead]

and the easiest way to do that is just have the paladin(which is just another word for champion) just have to be good.

No, "paladin" means a lot more than "champion."

According to dictionary.com, a paladin is:

1. A paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion.

Chivalry being "The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood." There's a lot of flavor baggage that comes with "paladin," like strict codes of conduct that necessitate a lawful alignment. Non-lawful paladins don't really make any sense. If you want a non-lawful holy warrior, you shouldn't call them a paladin. It'd be like making a druid that doesn't care about nature or a bard that doesn't like stories.

 

[Merlion]

Well as far as i've ever heard, paladin was champion...and actualy what I'd really like to see happen is the whole law/chaos system removed entirly, since all it boils down to is personality traits and political tendencies...I think the LG alignment for Paladins, and their association with the romantic arthurian definition of the "holy knight" is another of those things thats stayed with the game just because its always been there. And I dont really care what its called....I just think if they are going to have a holy knight/champion/warrior/paladin/templar in the core rulebook any restrictions as to code and alignment should be determined by the DM, campaign, and religion.
And the monk thing is just stupid...monks gain there powers from disicpline...so they have to be Lawful. The class implies one "lawful" trait..so its the required alignment for the class. especialy odd when you consider that in DnDs personality based law/chaos alignment system a monks inward-turning self focus could be easily seen as a chaotic trait.

 

[Merlion]

And just for the record..."no change" has gotten the greatest number of votes of any one choice...but more people than not have voted for one sort of change or another.
And I just feel that the implied setting of DnD is basicaly pretty standard fantasy...and in that context I dont see what Law has to do with being a holy warrior/champion/templar/paladin/knight. Why shouldnt a chaotic good deity of freedom, or a deity like Selune in the realms, have there own sacred warriors? Why do all deities and philosophies have clerics but only LG NG and LN ones have militant champions?

 

[Dinkeldog]

I would leave the default setting alone and provide a sidebar that gives options for removing those as house rules for a particular campaign.

 

[jester47]

And just for the record..."no change" has gotten the greatest number of votes of any one choice...but more people than not have voted for one sort of change or another.
And I just feel that the implied setting of DnD is basicaly pretty standard fantasy...and in that context I dont see what Law has to do with being a holy warrior/champion/templar/paladin/knight. Why shouldnt a chaotic good deity of freedom, or a deity like Selune in the realms, have there own sacred warriors? Why do all deities and philosophies have clerics but only LG NG and LN ones have militant champions?

Because the archetype for these militant champions were warriors dedicated to a diety of law good and true light, the christian diety as portrayed in the middle ages.

Law and good were essentially synonymous at that time mainly because of the way things had unfolded after rome declined. When someone ruled with military might and everyone got in line, things got easier and more secure. Thus people overall were more happy.

The warriors that holy warriors are based off of were soldiers of the church, and in some cases were ordained. (this was rare and early, and I am not sure if the Templars were ordained or not. I know they were a "monastic" order with a definate code of conduct, and it is most likely the Templars that are the basis for the D&D paladin. That is why paladins are normally lawful good.

Aaron.