Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jsaving" data-source="post: 5899701" data-attributes="member: 16726">It's interesting how people seem to agree that alignment shouldn't be a straitjacket, except in situations where they think it should be.  I think it's a mistake for alignment to have any mechanical impact whatsoever.  Many DMs don't like to use alignment; definitions of the various alignments tend to be imprecise; and abilities that only function against certain alignments inevitably create a "favored enemy problem" where builds that were highly useful in one adventure are nigh useless in the next.  And while it may be easy to say that people who don't like alignment can simply take it out, it isn't necessarily easy for a novice DM to clearly understand how removing alignment from the game might impact balance.  I also think alignment restrictions are incredibly broad and blunt instruments when applied to classes.  Who says a judgmental individual who respects tradition, keeps his word, and likes a relatively big government can't love nature (druid) or channel his anger into a potent weapon (barbarian) or feel wanderlust (bard)?  If specific traits like loving nature are integral to a particular class, then it's perfectly fine to require those particular traits without a huge number of extraneous traits that are embedded in each of the traditional alignments.   Paladins are often cited as a unique exception because chivalry is obviously the same thing as lawful goodness, but I'd disagree here as well.  My dictionary defines chivalry as courage against the strong, sympathy for the weak, skill with arms, and good manners.  And I just don't see why one's view of the proper size and scope of government, or how creative or judgmental one might be, or whether one respects kings and traditions has any bearing on how chivalrous any given person turns out to be.  If you want to require chivalry, require it directly and explicitly in the paladin class writeup rather than hoping that any particular alignment restriction can approximate it.Too often, people create a false dichotomy in which the only alternative to class alignment restrictions is letting everybody do and believe whatever they wish without mechanical consequence.  And my only point is that it doesn't have to be this way.</blockquote>

Verification