Alignment restrictions?

[Grimmjow]

how do you guys feel about classes being retracted to certain alignments the way it was in 3e. I personally hated it, especially when it related to paladins. I don't mind if they have themes that have alignment restrictions i just don't want to see it put on the classes, i feel it takes freedom away from me.

What about you guys?

 

[Jack Daniel]

There is such a thing as too much player freedom.

That said, alignment restrictions, like race/class restrictions and ability/class requirements, are something best left up to the DM. All it would take is a little optional sidebar in the new PHB explaining how things "used to work, back in the day." A little half-page that says, "Once upon a time, only Lawful Good humans with Cha 17+ could be paladins; rangers had to be Good and either human or elven; monks had to be Lawful and human, etc., etc." And DMs can decide whether they want to implement that sort of thing in their games, for the sake of a more retro, classic, literary, high-fantasy, or human-centric feel.

 

[dkyle]

I dislike alignment, and hate any alignment-based mechanics, especially alignment restrictions.

If we must have alignment, it should be a thing people write on their character sheet, next to "Height", "Weight" and "Hair Color". Nothing more.

If people really want rules to tell them what various alignments can and cannot do, put it in a module. It's a lot easier to add that stuff, than take it out.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I'm hoping for alignment restrictions that make sense.

LG Paladins
Chaotic Barbarians
Neutral Druids

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I loved them.

I tend to play classes with them - Monk and Paladins in particular. I think an Alignment restriction on a class really helps make the class more unique.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I like them, as it's a reminder for roleplay.

They were prevalent in 2nd ed, and useful guidance as a player.

Like any aspect of the rules, if you don't like them, ignore em via House Rules and carry on. (either as DM, or with DM's permission for his game)

Although some are easier to do than others, but Alignment is probably one of the easier ones to ignore.

I know in my Eberron games, I'm more free form in alignment, although I have guidelines for the type of campaign I'm running, and will reinforce that through in-game consequences.

The only place I don't like alignment is if there is too much direct mechanical reliance on alignment for a class as part of the mechanical balance for that class. Although even that is surmountable via House Rules if needed.

 

[hanez]

I dislike alignment, and hate any alignment-based mechanics, especially alignment restrictions.

If we must have alignment, it should be a thing people write on their character sheet, next to "Height", "Weight" and "Hair Color". Nothing more.

If people really want rules to tell them what various alignments can and cannot do, put it in a module. It's a lot easier to add that stuff, than take it out.

Completely disagree. I think you will find it much easier to ignore alignment in 3e then just place it in 4e. Not to mention the fairness of you randomly puttin it in 1 (otherwise balanced) class and not the other.

I prefer the designers to make archetypes like the paladin that sometimes require alignment restrictions. Players can play a paladin if they want to be heroic, or we can ignore that rule, or they can play a fighter. I prefer those solutions to removing yet again one more thing that makes classes different.

 

[dkyle]

Completely disagree. I think you will find it much easier to ignore alignment in 3e then just place it in 4e.

But we're not talking about 3E or 4E. We're talking about a system that is designed to be modular. It's a lot easier to design a module that adds stuff, than one that removes stuff. And if they can't manage to design a balanced "alignment mechanics" module to add onto a balanced core, to produce a balanced game, than I think they're pretty much screwed. If they can't even do that, how will they get the "4E-style tactics" module right?

 

[rjfTrebor]

They can go ahead and put them somewhere in the rules, but i'll be ripping alignment out of the game on day one anyway, so it won't really matter to me.

 

[Serendipity]

I know it won't happen, I just know they're going to default to 'classical' nine point alignment (ugh). I wouldn't cry if the next edition completely ditched alignment. The - relatively few in my view - mechanical implementations of alignment (like say, Protection from Evil) can be rendered in a fashion similar to the way Moldvay/Mentzer era D&D worked.
In game morality should be a function of RP, not mechanical straitjacketing.