Alignment restrictions?

[pemerton]

I have a suspicion that much of the alignment hatred is actually a response to changes in culture since the days of AD&D.

Or maybe people noticed that no serious account of moral commitment and moral disagreement - from Socrates and Plato through Ayer or Blackburn to Singer or Rai Gaita - uses a framework that can be captured in the alignment system.

The fact that wrongdoers non-ironically describe themselves as evil (contrast Milton's Satan's "Evil, be thou my good") is just the starting point for alignment's wrongheadedness as a system of moral thought or analysis.

 

[Zireael]

Alignment restrictions are really more self imposed. What they can do is limit a class's scope of activity and then include benefits which are lost if that scope is ever stepped outside of. How that scope is defined is up to the player in conjunction with the DM.

I agree completely. This way alignment could be placed conveniently in a module and everyone could have their choice.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm fine with the 9 alignments, but what I despise are alignment restrictions for any class.

And it's more interesting to see multiclass combos that were impossible in past editions due to alignment restrictions, such as Paladin/Assassins and Barbarian/Monks, rather than have some stupid arbitrary restriction shoved down all our throats.

 

[Grimmjow]

I'm fine with the 9 alignments, but what I despise are alignment restrictions for any class.

And it's more interesting to see multiclass combos that were impossible in past editions due to alignment restrictions, such as Paladin/Assassins and Barbarian/Monks, rather than have some stupid arbitrary restriction shoved down all our throats.

Exactly!

 

[GX.Sigma]

Alignment is one of those things that is easier to remove than add. It would make sense to have a "suggested alignment," and then the DM can do what they like:

1. You must use your suggested alignment
2. Use whatever alignment you want
3. Ignore alignment

The challenge then is how to strip out alignment-based mechanics, like smiting evil and stuff. (My preferred solution is just not to have them, but apparently that's not going to happen.)

 

[MoonSong]

And it's more interesting to see multiclass combos that were impossible in past editions due to alignment restrictions, such as Paladin/Assassins and Barbarian/Monks, rather than have some stupid arbitrary restriction shoved down all our throats.

But alignment has never been static and set on stone and those combos were actually very possible. (A barbarian who civilized himself to the point he wasn't chaotic anymore and found solace in a monastery were he becomes a monk, or a fallen Paladin that goes evil and trains to become an assasin).

 

[GX.Sigma]

But alignment has never been static and set on stone and those combos were actually very possible. (A barbarian who civilized himself to the point he wasn't chaotic anymore and found solace in a monastery were he becomes a monk, or a fallen Paladin that goes evil and trains to become an assasin).

Didn't barbarians and paladins lose their powers if they changed alignment?

 

[Rune]

I love me some 4e. Have had many a good session over the years. However, one thing almost drove me away from 4e before I even got into it:

The PHB Paladin not only has no alignment restriction (I can live with this.), it also specifically told me, the DM that (unlike the cleric), the Paladin's powers were not dependent on a deity's will--once given, the paladin could do whatever the hell he wanted with no fear of any repercussions, save social ones!

And wouldn't you know it, my problem player wanted to play just that paladin. Thanks a lot, WotC! You gave him a rulebook to shove in my face and say, "See!" instead of giving me (and him) guidelines on how to play a paladin responsibly.

As a player (and, somewhat, in real life), I love playing the classic, honor-and-code-bound, walk-the-high-road-at-all-costs paladin. I really would have liked some indication in the PHB that I still had the right to view paladins as such in my campaign. (The essentials cavalier did correct this mistake, by the way.)

That said, I have long viewed alignment as a nebulous thing (even when tied to game mechanics. For instance, in 3.5e, I turned detect evil into an always-on effect and simply let the paladin (different player, actually playing a lawful good paladin) know when "that guy doesn't seem right."

Therefore, I'd have to say that alignment restrictions are not a must for me, but behavior restrictions for some classes definitely are.

 

[MoonSong]

Didn't barbarians and paladins lose their powers if they changed alignment?

Never said it was a perfect combination...

Well alignment restrictions make sense for me because they add verosimility to the game (or at least to my game, please don't try to break my sujective perception with logic, I know people may and will feel otherwise), I like them. And it always has been possible to just ignore them (except for the smite, detect and alignment spells). I'm in for an easy way for people that loathes alignment and it's restrictions. Just wish for it not to be the default.

 

[GreyICE]

I love me some 4e. Have had many a good session over the years. However, one thing almost drove me away from 4e before I even got into it:

The PHB Paladin not only has no alignment restriction (I can live with this.), it also specifically told me, the DM that (unlike the cleric), the Paladin's powers were not dependent on a deity's will--once given, the paladin could do whatever the hell he wanted with no fear of any repercussions, save social ones!

And wouldn't you know it, my problem player wanted to play just that paladin. Thanks a lot, WotC! You gave him a rulebook to shove in my face and say, "See!" instead of giving me (and him) guidelines on how to play a paladin responsibly.

As a player (and, somewhat, in real life), I love playing the classic, honor-and-code-bound, walk-the-high-road-at-all-costs paladin. I really would have liked some indication in the PHB that I still had the right to view paladins as such in my campaign. (The essentials cavalier did correct this mistake, by the way.)

That said, I have long viewed alignment as a nebulous thing (even when tied to game mechanics. For instance, in 3.5e, I turned detect evil into an always-on effect and simply let the paladin (different player, actually playing a lawful good paladin) know when "that guy doesn't seem right."

Therefore, I'd have to say that alignment restrictions are not a must for me, but behavior restrictions for some classes definitely are.

Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their
deity, but instead through various rites performed
when they first become paladins. Most of these rites
involve days of prayer, vigils, tests and trials, and
ritual purification followed by a knighting ceremony,
but each faith has its own methods. This ceremony of
investiture gives a paladin the ability to wield divine
powers. Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore.
How justly, honorably, or compassionately the
paladin wields those powers from that day forward
is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the
tenets of their faith are punished by other members of
the faithful.

It's like they wrote the DM a little guideline right in the player's manual on how to handle 'That Guy.'

Also the concept of Paladins tracking down a member of their order who had gone rogue is just plain cool, and now HEAVILY supported by the fluff.

And if 'That Guy' decides to give the Knights of the Holy Order of Pelor a bad name, well, he can expect that the Knights of the Holy Order of Pelor might take a VERY dim view of that. To the point where the second time he tries it the party might hand him over to the Knights themselves.