Alignment restrictions?

[GX.Sigma]

Actually i find it to be about equal in effort. It takes just as much effort to say that paladins can only be LG then it is to say that they only can be LG.

The real difference is that the default sets the tone for the game.

The point is, it's a lot easier for everything to have an alignment listed and have a paragraph somewhere saying "oh, you can ignore all that stuff" than for nothing to have an alignment listed, and a huge table somewhere saying "OK, paladins are lawful good, barbarians are chaotic, monks are lawful, assassins are evil, druids are neutral, clerics are within one notch of their patron, devils are lawful evil, demons are chaotic evil, chromatic dragons are evil, metallic dragons are good, mind flayers are evil, beholders are evil, githzerai are neutral with respect to good and evil, githyanki are neutral evil, etc...."

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Monks being lawful only were one of my biggest problem alignment restrictions. What if you wanted to have a character with mystical kung-fu abilities that wasn't lawful? Well you'd have to pick a bunch of prestige classes, get the improved unarmed combat feat, and possibly levels of things like Psychic Warrior or Swordsage, or only advance to a certain point as a Monk and then change alignment and never advance again in that, all these complications just to duplicate that.

I was extremely disappointed back in 2e when the Psionicist class was also alignment restricted. And felt that all the justifications they had for only non-chaotics was very bad ones, especially when Wizards needed just as much "discipline" and could always have been chaotic. Which is one of the reasons why I liked that in 3e, they just dropped the idea of alignment restrictions from the Psion class, and what I like about 4e in that they did it to every other class in the game.

And Paladins were always a problematic class, some players can really understand the limits of LG and where LG and a code is not so restrictive, while others certainly can't. And as I always stated before, the Paladin class should just be an umbrella for all sorts of concepts and classes including the classic LG Paladin, Blackguards, Holy Liberators and so on. We don't need to waste space by having, "prestige classes" or separate classes that are "like a paladin, but of X alignment".

 

[GreyICE]

Meh, I'd be really happy if they presented it in a little sidebox inside the PHB.

-----------------------------------------------

Optional Rule: Divine Champions

The DM may choose to give Paladins a more direct
connection with their deity. Under this model, the
paladin is a servant of their deity who follows a
strict code of honor. He may not...

All servants under this strict moral code are lawful good
even if the deity they serve is not. Some Paladins in this
model serve Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good Deities, but
virtually none serve Chaotic or Evil deities. To adhere
to a strict moral code while under the direction of a God
who abhores strict moral codes is virtually impossible, and
it is questionable as to why such a deity would even desire
a Paladin serving him.

If a Paladin breaks their code and the offense is serious enough
the Paladin's God may remove the Paladin's powers.
In this case the Paladin retains their weapon proficiency,
armor proficiency, and feats, but loses all powers granted
by their deity (as labeled in the text). If this would cause
the Paladin to lose the prerequisite for any feat, they
retain the feat, but do not gain any benefits from it.
They may retrain the feat as normal.

Atonement: The atonement for their transgressions is
decided by the DM, and should be thematically appropriate
to the Paladin's sins. Some acts are so vile as to be beyond
redemption - sacrificing an infant to fuel a demon
summoning, for instance. The DM may rule that atonement
from such acts is impossible...

Paladins of evil deities are known as Blackguards. Created
to mock the Paladins of good deities, Blackguards follow
only their own destructive urges, and are encouraged by their
dark masters to do whatever they wish in the service of their
god. Some choose to follow their own sort of nobility,
serving their dark god with a twisted sense of honor. Others
revel in their wanton excesses, gleefully breaking pacts and
slaughtering innocents. Their only limitation is that they
must not commit a truly selfless act. If for one instant
they give up their hedonistic natures, and offer a
personal sacrifice for no gain to themselves or their dark
master, they immediately lose their powers (see: fall)
Blackguards lose X, Y, and Z and gain P and Q.

If the player wishes to play this style of Paladin, he is
encouraged to discuss it with the DM. This style of Paladin
may be the exclusive type of Paladin in a campaign world,
or may be played side-by-side with Paladins who serve their
God in a less direct manner.

Blackguards are an appropriate villain for campaigns with
this style of Paladin - although they are not mandatory!

-----------------------------------------------

Would this make pretty much everyone happy?